Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8642 Staff AnalysisMAY 23, 2011 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8642 Donna Pinckley 409 Rose Street Lot 13, Block 1, Pinehurst Addition Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36- 516 to allow a fence with increased height. 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. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50' back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the intersection of Rose and "C" Streets. B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 409 Rose Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence with a lower garage level. The property is located at the northeast corner of Rose Street and "C" Street. The residence is located within the north half of the lot. There is a two -car wide driveway from Rose Street at the southwest corner of the residence. A paved alley is located along the north (rear) property line. The property slopes downward from back to front (north to south). The yard area south of the residence is currently fenced with a six (6) foot high wood fence along the west side property line and approximately 7 to 8 feet back from the front (south) property line. A short wire fence is located along the east side property line. The existing wood fence ties into the southwest corner of the residence and a short portion is eight (8) feet high adjacent to a desk/step structure. The applicant proposes to repl;pre the existing wood and wire fences with a new six (6) foot high wood fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The wood fence would increase to a height of eight (8) feet adjacent to the existing deck and steps MAY 23, 2011 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. on the south side of the residence. The eight (8) foot high section would consist of a six (6) foot solid wood panel with two (2) feet of lattice on top. 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 elsewhere on a lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed six (6) foot high wood fence along the west street side property line and within the south 25 feet of the lot (within the front building setback along "C" Street). The eight (8) foot section does not require a variance based on the fact that it appears to meet all building setbacks. Staff is not supportive of the requested fence variance, as filed. As noted in paragraph A. of the staff report, the Public Works Department requires the fence at the intersection to be located 50 feet back from the southwest corner of the lot, within a triangular area. This is a sight/distance requirement as per Section 32-8 of the Code. Additionally, given the fact that the houses immediately east along "C" Street have a front yard relationship to this lot, staff cannot support a six (6) foot high fence within the south 25 feet (front yard setback) of the lot. The existing six (6) foot high wood fence is non -conforming, and can be repairedimaintained. However, if it is taken down it cannot be replaced without complying with the ordinance requirements. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 28, 2011) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff explained that the applicant had agreed to defer the application to the April 25, 2011 Agenda in order to meet with Public Works personnel and discuss options for the proposed fence. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 25, 2011 agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. Staff Update: Public Works staff and the applicant met on the site to review the proposed fence issue. Public Works submitted a revised plan to staff which they can support. The revised plan locates the fence 24 feet back from the edge of pavement of "C" Street. This puts the fence approximately 17 feet inside the front (south) property line. The southwest portion of the fence will be angled back slightly (approximately 45 degrees) to aid in sight -distance at the intersection of Rose and "C" Streets. The applicant has spoken with staff and revised the application according to the Public Works revised plan. Staff continues to be non -supportive of the requested fence variance because of the front yard relationship this property shares with the houses immediately to the east along "C" Street. MAY 23, 2011 ITEM NO.: A CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2011) Donna Pinckley was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application, noting that the applicant had amended the application to move the proposed fence further inside the front (south) property line, as described in the above "Staff Update". Staff noted that Public Works was supportive of the revised application. Staff continued to be non -supportive of the application. Donna Pinckley addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that the existing fence had been in place for many years and had caused n❑ problems. Vice -Chairman Smith explained that he had concerns with the proposed fence location being within the front building setback area. Ms. Pinckley explained that by pushing the fence further north, she would be loosing rear yard area. Vice -Chairman Smith asked if the existing fence could be maintained. Ms. Pinckley explained that the existing fence had been in place for 17 years and could be repaired and maintained for a few more years, but that she would rather spend the money on a new fence. Staff explained the difference between the existing fence and proposed fence. There was a motion to approve the application, as revised by the applicant. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 2 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The application was automatically deferred to the May 23, 2011 Board of Adjustment agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2011) Donna Pinckley was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application, as revised by the applicant prior to the previous meeting. Staff noted that Public works supported the revised fence location. Donna Pinckley addressed the Board in support of the application. She presented photos of the existing fence to the Board. She also presented a petition of support from nearby property owners. Rajesh Mehta explained that he had visited the site and noted that the existing fence needed to be replaced. He noted that the slope of the property lessened the visual impact of the proposed fence. Vice -Chairman Smith explained that he could not support six (6) foot high fences in front yard areas. There was a motion to approve the fence height variance, as revised by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved. Staff informed Ms. Pinckley that a building permit would be required for the new fence construction.