Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/20/2002MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 20, 2002
PRESENT:
John Key, Chairman 0 Members
Willa Burgess 0
Jose Garcia 0
Dana Mills, M.D. 0
Les Seipel 0
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
J. D. Ruiz 0
Thomas Cross 0
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Key called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the October 16, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by
the Board as submitted.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. V 02-05
Variance for a Privacy Fence in the 25 Foot Setback
3036 Cromwell Avenue
Applicant ......................................Henry L. Sapp, property owner
Property........................................3036 Cromwell Avenue, Lot 30A, Block 18, Fountain
Park, Section 21-B.
Requested Action.........................Application for a variance of Section 4220(B) to allow
a 6-foot tall privacy fence within a portion of the 25-
foot setback area. The enclosed map shows the area
that the applicant is proposing to fence.
Purpose........................................To fence an area of the rear of the property into the
backyard.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Commentary.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a privacy fence in the 25-foot setback.
Fences are allowed in the side street setback, in the rear, and in an interior side
setback. However, fences in the front 25-foot setback are allowed only if they are four
feet high or less and at least 50% open.
The applicant's property was originally two lots. When the property was replatted, the
plat showed a front setback along the entire frontage of the lot. As a result the owner
could not place a fence within that area. He is now wishing to place a fence in the back
yard and would like to fence part of the 25-foot setback. A map showing the applicant's
request is included with this report.
Before considering the variance request, the board must first determine if the request
meets the qualifying criteria for a variance.
Qualifying Criteria:
1. Special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures, or building in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "My lot is situated inside a sharp curve on Cromwell which
makes the lot triangular. This caused the side of my lot to be considered
'frontage' thereby necessitating a 25-foot setback line. There is also an existing
fence along the north property line that terminates 15 feet from the right-of-way
line."
Staff response: The applicant's property is unusual in that it is a corner lot
without a designated exterior side setback. On a single-family corner lot usually
the narrowest dimension is the front and is given a 25-foot front setback
designation. The side street is portion is designated the exterior side setback
and is typically given a 15 foot setback. Privacy fencing is allowed in the side
setback, but not in the front.
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "Both of the above conditions were present when I
purchased the lot. The existing fence appears to belong to the property owners
to the north."
Staff response: The shape of the lot was established before the applicant
purchased the property.
3. State how literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would
deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same district under the terms of this Ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Applicant's statement: "The zoning ordinance states that side, exterior setback
lines are to be 15 feet for SF-1. All other residents with a city street along the
front and side of their lots enjoy a 15-foot side setback. "
Staff response: This is the way that most, but not all lots are platted.
4. State how the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with
the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant
any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district.
Applicant's statement: " the granting of this variance would allow me to enjoy the
same privilege that other residents that have city streets on the front and side of
their lots currently enjoy. It would not grant me any privilege that others do not
currently enjoy."
Staff response: When the two lots were combined, a lot with no designated side
setback resulted.
Staff feels that this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board.
Evaluation Criteria:
In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the
request qualifies to be heard by the board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires
that the following criteria be used:
The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Staff feels that granting this variance would be in the public interest. The 25-foot
building limit line would remain, only the ability to fence it would be allowed.
Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal
enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship to the owner of the land.
The existence of a lot with no designated side setback could be considered a
special condition.
The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by
the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned Single Family, a residence is a permitted use in this
zoning district.
The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
The intent of the restriction on fences is to prevent the blocking of the
front setback area with a visual screen. Fences in the front yard are
judged to be a nuisance by most homeowners. In this case the fence will
have a 15-foot setback, will be on the side of the residences and should
not adversely affect any adjacent property owners.
Is in harmony therewith;
Staff believes that this fence will be in harmony with the adjacent
neighborhood.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
This fence will not create nuisances that will adversely impact the
surrounding properties.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting this variance should not harm the long-term economic
development of the City or affect the public in the long-term, considering
its function, appearance or layout.
Recommendation:
Staff feels that special conditions may exist because of the curved configuration of the
lot, and recommend approval of this variance.
Chairman Key swore in Mr. Henry Sapp, applicant, and Mr. Brian Salter, of Biggs and
Mathews and representing the applicant.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request:
There was no discussion regarding the qualifying criteria. Dr. Mills made a motion that
the qualifying criteria are acceptable and the Board should proceed to hearing the
evaluation criteria. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor
of approval.
Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of the Variance Request:
Mr. Seese gave a brief presentation and reviewed the responses from the
neighborhood. The main objection was lack of visibility concerning traffic; staff does not
feel this is a concern.
Mr. Brian Salter, representative for Biggs and Mathews Engineers, stated visibility to the
south of the existing alley would not be affected. Ms. Burgess asked if access to
Cromwell would be affected by the height of the fence. Mr. Salter stated the new fence
would not be more restrictive than the fence that is currently in place.
Mr. Seiple made a motion to approve the variance. Mr. Garcia seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
IV. ADJOURN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
John Key, Chairman
Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5