Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8465 Staff AnalysisJUNE 29, 2009 ITEM NO_: 3 File No.: Z-8465 Owner/Applicant: R. David Scruggs Address: 5516 Southwood Road Description: Lot 197, Prospect Terrace No. 3 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance 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 R-2 zoned property at 5516 Southwood Road is occupied by a two-story stucco single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Southwood Road which serves as access. A large pool/rock deck structure is located within the south half of the rear yard area. The rear yard area slopes downward from side to side (north to south). There is approximately 15 feet of drop from the north side property line to the south side property line. The applicant is proposing to construct six (6) and eight (8) foot high wood fencing around the rear yard/pool area, as noted on the attached site plan. An eight (8) foot tall wood fence is proposed along the south and west sides of the pool area and rear (west) property line. Six (6) foot high fencing with a gate is proposed at the end of the driveway, creating an entrance to the rear yard/pool area. The applicant notes that the eight (8) foot fence height is needed to JUNE 29, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. provide privacy between this property and the property immediately south, and to provide safety for the pool area by restricting access to the pool area by children in the neighborhood. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for fences in R-2 zoning along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fence with an eight (8) foot height. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff's support is based on the issues of screening and safety as raised by the applicant. With the slope of the property, the rear yard of the lot immediately south is several feet below the grade of the pool area. However, the rear deck and windows of the adjacent house are at approximately the same level as the pool area. A six (6) foot fence would provide very little privacy between the two (2) properties. Additionally, the taller fence will aid in creating a safe environment for the pool area. It will make the pool area less visible to the surrounding properties and help keep children from entering the property without permission. The requested eight (8) foot fence height will not be out of character with other taller fences in this neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the area. The property owner immediately to the south at 5520 Southwood Road has submitted a letter of support for the fence variance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (J U N E 29, 2009) The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Vice -chair Winchester asked the objector to speak. Claudia Stallings, of 5523 Sherwood Road, stated she wanted the property pins to be in place prior to the fence being built. She stated she did not want gates in the rear fence whereby people might cross her property to enter the applicant's property. The applicant responded that he was not placing the fence on the property line at one point and he had additional property which would be outside of the fenced area. He stated he needed a gate in that area to maintain his property. A motion was made to defer the item. The motion failed to receive a second. The applicant stated he would string a line along the property line. JUNE 29, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 (Can't. Scott Smith asked Ms. Stallings if she would object to the requested fence height if the property lines were correctly marked. She stated she did not object to the fence height . During the ensuing discussion, the Board determined that there was an apparent property line dispute. Scott Smith asked staff if the issue before the Board was only the fence height variance. Staff responded that he was correct. A motion was made to approve the fence height variance, subject to compliance with all staff conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.