Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8566 Staff AnalysisSEPTEMBER 27, 2010 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8566 Owner: Pearl, LLC Applicant: David Pearlstein Address: 122 Rice Street Description: Lot 8, Block 4, Capitol View Addition Zoned: R-4 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-4 zoned property at 122 Rice Street contains a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Rice Street and W. 2nd Street. There is a gravel driveway from W. 2nd Street which serves as access to the property. The property slopes downward from back to front (west to east). The front yard area of the lot is approximately four (4) to five (5) feet above the grade of Rice Street. The applicant recently constructed a wood fence along the front (east) and south side property lines, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence varies in height and steps down with the slope along the south property line. The portion of the fence which is in the front yard area is constructed of three (3) to four (4) feet of solid wood with approximately two (2) feet of lattice -type woodwork (non -opaque) on top. The fence along the south side property line is six (6) to eight (8) feet in height with similar construction to the portion in the front yard area. The vast majority of the fence along the south property line is six (6) to seven (7) feet in height. It only nears the eight (8) foot high mark near the southeast corner of the lot. SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 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 building setback line and street front or side property line, and six (6) feet elsewhere on a single family lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow those portions of the fence which are located between the building setback lines and the street side property lines to exceed the maximum height allowed. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The yard elevation along where the fence is located is several feet above the grade of the adjacent streets. This gives the fence the appearance that it is taller than it actually is. Additionally, the new fence is not out of character with other fences in the general area. The property immediately to the south across W. 2nd Street recently received a variance to allow an eight (8) foot high fence along the street side property line. Staff believes the new fence is a nice improvement to the property and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the applicant had not completed the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 26, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the applicant had not completed the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the August 30, 2010 agenda. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the August 30, 2010 agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 30, 2010) The applicant was not present. There were two (2) persons present with concerns. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the September 27, 2010 agenda based on the fact that the applicant was not present. There was a motion to defer the application to the September 27, 2010 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent and 1 open position. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position.