Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8980 Staff AnalysisOCTOBER 27, 2014 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8980 Owner/Applicant: Sylvester Lang Address: #2 Oxford Run Court Description: Southwest Corner of Oxford Run Court and W. 57th Street 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 Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at #2 Oxford Run Court is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of Oxford Run Court and W. 57th Street. A two -car wide driveway from Oxford Run Court serves as access to the lot. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line along the Oxford Run Court frontage and a 25 foot street side platted building line along the W. 57th Street frontage. The applicant recently received a permit (issued by staff in error) to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence along the west (rear) property line and eight (8) feet in from the north (street side) property line, tying into the rear (northwest) corner of the house. The applicant constructed the fence along the rear (west) property line, running to the northwest corner of the lot. The fence then runs along the north (street side) property line approximately 55 feet, turns and ties into the northwest corner of the house. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of four (4) feet for residential fences constructed between building setback lines and street rights -of -way. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on residential lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard OCTOBER 27, 2014 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T. to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence between the 25 foot platted building line and the north (W. 57th Street) side property line, running along the north property line. Staff does not support the requested fence height variance. Staffs objection is based primarily on the orientation of the single family lot immediately to the west along W. 57t" Street. The proposed fence is located extending into the front yard area of this neighboring lot. It essentially "boxes in" the adjacent lot's front yard area, blocking the home's visibility from the roadway and surrounding properties. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to support a fence height variance, with the fence located at least eight (8) feet back from the north (street side) property line, as approved by staff on the existing fence permit. No fencing with a height exceeding four (4) feet may be located within eight (8) feet of the north property line. Staff feels that this will allow ample sight -distance space for the resident immediately to the west to utilize their existing driveway. Additionally, it will allow this applicant more area to fence, with six (6) foot high fencing, for a side/rear yard area. If the applicant were willing to amend the application accordingly, staff will recommend approval. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (October 27, 2014) Sylvester Lang was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial, as requested. Staff noted the application could be supported if the fence were located six (6) feet back from the north property line. Sylvester Lang addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a letter in support from the next door neighbor at 5801 W. 57th Street. He noted that the existing fence had no negative impact on the next door neighbor. He noted that the fence, as constructed, was for privacy and safety issues. He stated that it was his intent to fence his entire property (rear yard area). The existing fence location was discussed. The Board indicated support for the fence to be located six (6) feet back from the north property line, if Mr. Lang were willing to amend his application accordingly. Mr. Lang indicated that he did not wish to amend the application. Staff explained the appeal process to Mr. Lang, if the application were not approved. At this point, Mr. Lang exited the Board room. There was a motion to approve the application. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 3 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied.