Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8868 Staff AnalysisJUNE 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Rose Thompson 3523 Cobb Street Lot 12, Block 88, John Barrow Addition R-3 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: The location and operation of the gate along W. 36t" Street must be approved by Public Works prior to installation. Contact Nathan Charles at 918-5348 for details. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 3523 Cobb Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner of Cobb Street and W. 36t" Street. There is a new one -car wide driveway from W. 36th Street which will access a new carport addition at the southeast corner of the residence. A new six (6) foot high wood fence has also been constructed along the south (street side) and east (rear) property lines, as noted on the attached site plan. An existing six (6) foot high wood fence is located along the north side property line. The new fence ties into the southwest corner of the residence, with a new fence section located between the northeast corner of the house and the existing wood fence along the north property line. 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 a street right-of-way on property zoned residential. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on residential lots. The minimum required street side building setback for this lot is 4.8 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow that portion of the six (6) foot high fence which is located within 4.8 feet of the south (street side) property line. The remaining sections of new fence comply with ordinance standards. J U N E 24, 2013 ITEM NO.: 1 (C Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant has simply enclosed the rear and side yard areas of the lot for security purposes. The new fence does not extend into the front yard area. The proposed fence placement is similar to fences found in residential subdivisions throughout Little Rock. The City's Traffic Engineering division has reviewed the new fence placement and has noted that there are no blind corner issues. Public Works has also reviewed and approved the new driveway constructed from W. 36tn Street. Staff believes that the new fence 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 permit being obtained for the fence construction and compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the Staff Report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (June 24, 2013) Rose Thompson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Rose Thompson addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that she needed the six (6) foot high fence for security purposes. She noted that she had filed four (4) police reports in the past year because of vandalism. She also noted that she had a dog that could jump over a four (4) foot high fence. Vice -Chair Smith asked staff what fence heights were allowed by ordinance. Staff explained the ordinance requirements. The issue was further discussed. Staff noted that there were similar fence situations throughout the City. Vice -Chair Smith made additional comments regarding the fence requirements. Ms. Thompson further explained that the fence was needed primarily for security purposes. There was additional discussion regarding the fence placement. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 nay, and 0 absent. The application was approved. JUNE 24, 2013 ITEM N0.- 1 File No.: Z-8868 Owner/Applicant: Rose Thompson Address: 3523 Cobb Street Description: Lot 12, Block 88, John Barrow Addition Zoned: R-3 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: The location and operation of the gate along W. 36th Street must be approved by Public Works prior to installation. Contact Nathan Charles at 918-5348 for details. Staff Ana! sis: The R-3 zoned property at 3523 Cobb Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner of Cobb Street and W. 3611 Street. There is a new one -car wide driveway from W. 36'" Street which will access a new carport addition at the southeast corner of the residence. A new six (6) foot high wood fence has also been constructed along the south (street side) and east (rear) property lines, as noted on the attached site plan. An existing six (6) foot high wood fence is located along the north side property line. The new fence ties into the southwest corner of the residence, with a new fence section located between the northeast corner of the house and the existing wood fence along the north property fine. 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 a street right-of-way on property zoned residential. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on residential lots. The minimum required street side building setback for this lot is 4.8 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow that portion of the six (6) foot high fence which is located within 4.8 feet of the south (street side) property line. The remaining sections of new fence comply with ordinance standards. JUNE 24, 2013 ITEM Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant has simply enclosed the rear and side yard areas of the lot for security purposes. The new fence does not extend into the front yard area. The proposed fence placement is similar to fences found in residential subdivisions throughout Little Rock. The City's Traffic Engineering division has reviewed the new fence placement and has noted that there are no blind corner issues. Public Works has also reviewed and approved the new driveway constructed from Street. Staff believes that the new fence will have no adver,e impact on the W. 30th adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction and compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the Staff Report, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (June 24, 2013) Rose Thompson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Rose Thompson addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that she needed the six (6) foot high fence for Security purposes. She noted that she had filed four (4) police reports in the past year because of vandalism. She also noted that she had a dog that could jump over a four (4) foot high fence. Vice -Chair Smith asked staff what fence heights were allowed by ordinance. Staff explained the ordinance requirements, The issue was further discussed. Staff noted that there were similar fence situations throughout the City. Vice -Chair Smith made additional comments regarding the fence requirements. Ms. Thompson further explained that the fence was needed primarily for security purposes. There was additional discussion regarding the fence placement. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 nay, and 0 absent. The application was approved.