Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8520 Staff AnalysisAPRIL 26, 2010 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8520 Owner/Applicant: Turag Ronaghi Address: 49 DuClair Court Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Chenal Valley 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 Anal The R-2 zoned property at 49 Duclair Court is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is a paved alley located along the rear property line. A driveway from the alley serves as access to a garage on the rear of the residence. The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot — nine (9) inch tall wood fence to enclose a portion of the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site plan, The new fence consists of standard six (6) foot high (1 inch by 4 inch) wood pickets (dog -eased), on top of two (2) 2 X 6 timbers running horizontally on end. A portion of the fence along the south property line has not been completed, as the applicant stopped work when he was informed of the need for a variance. 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 zoned areas. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the newly constructed fence with an overall height of approximately six (6) feet — nine (9) inches. APRIL 26, 2010 ITEM NO.: A (Con't. C Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the issue as a relatively minor increase in fence height. There are several six (6) foot tall fences located along the alley. Several of the fences have decorative posts with heights near seven (7) feet. When viewing the new fence from one end of the alley or the other, it does not have the appearance of being out of character, height -wise, with the other fences along the alley. Staff believes the fence, as constructed, will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant should be aware that there may be an architectural review committee for this neighborhood which could include fence construction. - Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the March 29, 2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the March 29, 2010 meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the April 26, 2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the April 26, 2010 meeting by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010) Turag Ronaghi was present, representing the application. There was one (1) registered objector present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the recommendation of approval included the condition that a permit be obtained for the fence construction. Turag Ronaghi addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that his neighbors had no problem with his fence, other than one (1) neighbor. He explained that the fence enhanced the neighborhood. Melanie Orintas addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that there was an architectural review committee for the neighborhood which reviewed fence construction. She stated that the quality of the fence is not the same as other fences APRIL 26, 2010 ITEM NO.: A (Con't. in the neighborhood. She presented photos of other properties in the neighborhood. She also stated that the neighborhood association president was opposed to the proposed fence. There was a brief discussion of the issue of bills of assurance and architectural review committees. Mr. Ronaghi explained that the horizontal lumber at the base of the fence was installed because of water run-off which would rot the fence pickets if they were on the ground. There was a motion to approve the fence variance as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.