09/07/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

owner's own actions. 5. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 6. The proposed use of a new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the SF -2 Zoning District. 4. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Chance Floyd, on Lot 1, Block B, of the Meadows, being located at 4135 Jasmine Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-501 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: (1) 9-501 Schedule minimum front yards -Residential districts SF -2 Zoning requires a minimum of 25' front yard, unless the plat designates a different setback The applicant has received a permit and constructed a front yard, 6' high privacy fence. Being located on a corner lot a 10' front yard setback is required on the side yard according to the plat. The applicant mistakenly built the fence on the property line instead of at the 10' required setback. The applicant is requesting a 10' variance to leave the fence where it is. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents the variance to the board. Andrew states that the fence was measured 10' from the back of the curb, which placed it on the property line versus being measured 10' off the property line. The fence had been permitted and after it was constructed, the city began receiving complaints about it obstructing their view to oncoming traffic on 42nd street. After receiving several complaints the applicant was given the options to remove the fence entirely, move the fence back to the proper setback or apply for the variance to leave it as is. It was also determined that the fence was needed for a pool that had been recently permitted and is in construction. Andrew also made the board aware of similar fences in the area on corner lots that establishes a precedent for the variance. Lastly, Andrew recommends approval to the board with the condition that a portion of the fence be removed to create a diagonal angle along the northeastern corner of the lot to create visibility as proposed in the draft changes to the fence ordinance to address the visibility and safety concerns of the citizens. Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook, asks if the City believes that the diagonal will improve visibility for people exiting the alleyway onto 42nd street to which Andrew Mack states that he does though the exact dimensions of the diagonal have not been applied or determined in the field yet. Jerry Haning asks since the variance was applied for if the applicant was not willing to do the diagonal instead of going through this process to which Andrew replied that the diagonal was proposed as an option along with the variance process. William Sanders asked with there being other fences in the area identified as non-compliant are they going to be required to comply with the ordinance if they ever decide to re -construct the fence or if they are subject to the same variance process if they will be denied in the future. Andrew then explains that since they are existing they would be considered legal non -conforming which means