Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8963 Staff AnalysisAUGUST 25, 2014 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8963 Charles and Leigh Ann Kreps 7 River Ridge Road Northeast corner of River Ridge Road and River Valley Road 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 /0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7 River Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner of River Ridge Road and River Valley Road. There is a circular driveway on the west side of the residence. The driveway extends along the north end of the residence to a carport at the northeast corner of the structure. There is an existing brick wall along the east side property line. The lot contains a 30 foot platted building line along the River Ridge Road (west) frontage and a 25 foot platted building line along the River Valley Road (south) frontage. The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence within the south, street side yard area, with a small fence section at the northeast corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed fence will extend from the southwest corner of the house, set back approximately 12 feet from the River Valley Road curb line and tie into the existing brick wall along the east side property line. A smaller section of six (6) foot high wood fence will extend from the northeast corner of the house to the existing brick wall. 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 building setback lines and street rights -of -way and a maximum height of six (6) feet for fences located elsewhere on a residential lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a fence height variance to AUGUST 25, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. allow the portion of the six (6) foot high wood fence to be located between the 25 foot platted building line and the south, street side property line. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed six (6) foot high wood fence will not be out of character with other fences within this neighborhood. Six (6) foot fence height is the typical fence height for the enclosure of rear and side yard areas in single family residential zoning. The proposed fence will be set in approximately 12 feet from the River Valley Road Curb line, and will be located over 80 feet back from the southwest (intersection) corner of the lot. Therefore, the proposed fence should create no sight -distance issues. Staff believes the proposed 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, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (July 28, 2014) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 25, 2014 agenda, based on the fact that the applicant failed to notify all property owners within 200 feet of the site as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 25, 2014 Agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred. Staff Update: In response to concerns/comments from a nearby property owner, the applicant has revised the application to move the fence further back from the River Valley Road curb line. The applicant is now requesting to locate the six (6) foot high wood fence 20 feet back from the River Valley Road curb line, which would place the fence approximately 10 feet inside the property line. Staff continues to support the requested fence height variance, as filed. The Public Works Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the revised fence placement for sight distance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (August 25, 2014) Charles and Leigh Ann Kreps were present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the revised application with a recommendation of approval. AUGUST 25, 2014 ITEM NO.: A ICON'T. Rajesh Mehta noted that he would recuse due to business relations with Eddie Martin, the person present in objection. The Board offered a deferral to the applicants, due to there being only three (3) voting Board members present. Charles Kreps indicated that he would like to proceed. Charles Kreps addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that he revised the application to move the fence back 20 feet from the curb due to a neighbor's concerns. He noted that the neighbor also wanted landscaping between the fence and the street. He explained that he did not want the landscape issue to be part of the variance request. Eddie Martin addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that he and Mr. Kreps had agreed to landscaping being installed between the proposed fence and the street. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Martin if he would be agreeable to the fence being installed first with landscaping at a later date. Mr. Martin stated that he wished to have both installed at the same time. Mr. Kreps noted that he could not include landscaping as part of the fence project. The issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Yates asked the applicants if there was some landscaping between the fence and street that they planned to do. Mrs. Kreps noted that evergreen trees would probably be planted. Chairman Yates noted that the two (2) parties needed to work together to resolve the landscape issue. There was a motion to recess this public hearing to later in the meeting (after item B.). The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Mehta). There was a motion to resume the public hearing on this application. The motion passed by a vote Of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Mehta). Mr. Kreps and Mr. Martin indicated that an agreement had been reached. The issue was briefly discussed. Staff noted that there were no landscaping requirements for single family property. Staff also noted that to staff's knowledge the Board had never placed a condition on a fence height variance that included landscaping. The issue of landscaping was discussed further. Mr. Kreps amended his proposal/application to include the planting of one (1) evergreen tree every seven (7) feet along the south boundary of the proposed fence. The issue was discussed further. There was a motion to approve the application without the applicant's amendment. The motion was withdrawn due to lack of a second. There was a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal. The revised application was approved.