Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8424 Staff AnalysisAPRIL 27, 2009 fi��r•i�L��_1 File No.: Z-8424 Owner: Craig and Natalie Weatherly Applicant: Craig Weatherly Address: 1218 Center Street Description: Lot 8, Block 195, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variances is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis_ The UU zoned property at 1218 Center Street is occupied by a two-story frame single-family residence which is in the process of being remodeled. There is a one-story accessory building in the rear yard area, near the southwest corner of the property. There is a paved alley along the rear (west) property line. There is a new wood fence which is located along the front (east), side (north) and rear (west) property lines. The new fence is six (6) feet in height running along the front and rear property lines. The majority of the fence along the north side property line is six (6) feet in height, with the exception of an eight (8) foot high section which runs for approximately the depth of the residence (approximately 52 feet). The fence transitions upward from the six (6) foot sections to the eight (8) foot section. There is an existing rock wall and fence located along a portion of the south side property line. APRIL 27, 2009 ITEM NO.: A [CON'T. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a front building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fences located along interior lot lines are allowed to have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence along the front property line and east 25 feet of the north side property line, and the eight (8) foot section (with transition) along the north side property line. The applicant has noted that the fence was constructed for security purposes while the house is being remodeled, and requests the variance for the portion along the front (east) property line for only one (1) year from the Board's meeting date. He has plans to replace it with a four (4) foot high wrought iron fence. The fence along the north (side) property line would remain as constructed. Staff does not support the fence variance as requested. Although staff has no problem with the requested variance for the fence along the front property line (temporary) and the eight (8) foot section along the north property line, staff believes the east 18 feet of the fence located along the north property line should also be reduced to a height of four (4) feet within one (1) year. There is a residence located immediately to the north, and staff feels that reducing the fence height within the front yard area, at least to the front porch (18 feet from front property line), would help maintain the residential appearance for the front yard areas. If the applicant were willing to revise the application to include this 18 foot section, staff would support the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary portion of the fence located along the front and north side (east 18 feet) property lines be reduced to four (4) feet within one (1) year. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2009) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the February 23, 2009 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notifications to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 23, 2009 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. APRIL 27, 2009 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 23, 2009) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 30, 2009 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notifications to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 30, 2009 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Staff Update: The applicant submitted a letter to staff, revising the application as suggested by staff in paragraph B. of the agenda report. The applicant notes that the east 18 feet of the fence along the north property line will be reduced to a four (4) foot height within one (1) year, as will the fence along the front (east) property line. Therefore, staff now supports the application. Revised Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary portion of the fence located along the front and north side (east 18 feet) property lines be reduced to four (4) feet within one (1) year. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the April 27, 2009 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 27, 2009 Agenda, as recommended by staff, with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 27, 2009) Craig Weatherly was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the application as revised by the applicant. Scott Smith asked why the eight (8) foot high fence section was needed along the north property line. Mr. Weatherly explained that it was to alleviate the noise from the adjacent property to the north. Mr. Smith asked why the eight (8) foot high APRIL 27, 2009 M NO.: A (C0N'T.) section did not extend to the west to the rear property line. Mr. Weatherly noted that the additional fence height was only needed adjacent to the structure next door. There was a brief discussion related to the transitioning heights of the fence along the north property line. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved.