Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8457 Staff AnalysisMAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8457 Owner/Applicant: Susan H. Stoelting Address: 221 Dryad Lane Description: Lot 65, Section "C", Clover Hill Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36- 516 to allow construction of 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: 1. The proposed fence should be installed to not obstruct storm water drainage across the property. 2. Due to the City desiring access to perform maintenance to the ditch at the rear of the lot, the existing chain link fence located within the easement on the rear property line should be removed out of the easement when the new fence is installed. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 221 Dryad Lane is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Dryad Lane which serves as access. The rear yard is fenced with a four (4) foot high chain -link fence. The applicant recently began construction of a new wood fence along the south side property line, at the southwest corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The applicant had constructed an eight (8) foot high fence section running along the south side of the house for approximately the depth MAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. of the structure. Additionally, a six (6) foot high fence section enclosing a garbage can area, was constructed at the southwest corner of the residence. This section crosses the 25 foot front platted building line by approximately one (1) foot. The zoning enforcement staff observed the fence construction on March 17, 2009 and issued a courtesy notice to cease the fence construction and lower the fence section to meet code requirements or request a variance. The applicant is proposing to keep the fencing already constructed, and enclose the rear yard with a six (6) foot high wood fence with two (2) feet of lattice or top for an overall fence height of eight (8) feet. A solid eight (8) foot wood section is proposed running from the north east corner of the residence to the north property line. The existing and proposed fencing is shown on the attached site plan. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and street right-of-way, and six (6) feet for fences located along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence to enclose the rear yard area, and the six (6) foot high section which encloses the garbage can area and crosses the front platted building line by approximately one (1) foot. The applicant notes in the attached cover letter that she has a dog that cannot be left alone in the rear yard because it can jump fences of four (4) and six (6) foot heights. Staff does not support the requested fence height variance, as filed. Staff typically has no problem supporting residential fences of eight (8) foot heights, when the top two (2) feet is lattice. Staff could support the variance if the applicant were willing to make the existing and proposed eight (8) foot high solid wood sections six (6) feet solid wood and two (2) feet of lattice. This would include the existing eight (8) foot wood section along the south side of the residence and the proposed eight (8) foot wood section at the northwest corner of the house. Staff feels this would allow the applicant a fence height to maintain an area for her dog as well as not create a fortress -like fence structure between the residential properties. Staff has no problem with allowing the six (6) foot high trash area enclosure at the southwest corner of the residence as constructed. Staff believes a six (6) foot high wood fence with two (2) feet of lattice at this location will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. MAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 18, 2009) Susan Stoelting was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial, as filed. Susan Stoelting addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that she would agree to have all the eight (8) foot high fence sections (existing and proposed) be six (6) feet of solid wood with two (2) feet of lattice on top. She explained that the fence height of eight (8) feet is needed because her dog would be able to jump over a six (6) foot fence height. Vice -Chairman Winchester asked if she had a contractor doing the fence construction. Ms. Stoelting explained that she was doing the work herself with help from friends. James Van Dover asked if she was revising the application to have all the eight (8) foot fencing be six (6) feet of solid wood with two (2) feet of lattice on top. Ms. Stoelting stated that she was amending the application. Scott Smith asked if the existing chain -link fence near the rear property would be removed. Staff noted that it would be removed as required by Public Works. Mr. Smith stated that there needed to be a top rail to support the lattice. Ms. Stoelting stated that a top rail would be part of the revised application. There was discussion pertaining to the existing chain -link fence on the neighboring property to the south. Staff noted support of the revised application, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement, as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. There was a motion to approve the application, as revised by the applicant and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved.