06-27-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ordinance, and that the hardship deprives the applicant of reasonable use of the property. In this case, the applicant argues that the adjoining commercial traffic deprives his family of privacy in the back yard. The question is whether a variance to locate along the lot line is necessary for reasonable use. Planning staff believes that the introduction of the business use, while a current concern due to traffic volume, was not unanticipated, since the previous zoning on the Coffee House site was B -3, General Business. The R -B zoning constituted a greater limitation on the opportunities for commercial use on this parcel. Clearly, the impact of the traffic does affect the applicant's use of his property. As a result, a variance appears to be appropriate to help the applicant maximize his privacy. The standard width lot on a corner would be able to have a house constructed to a 30 foot side yard setback, and a six foot high solid fence would also need to meet this same building line. Because the house was considered to be appropriately located with a 16 foot setback, staff believes that a similar setback variance for a six foot high fence would also be reasonable. At this location, a fully opaque fence would also be proper, as if it were constructed to meet the regular setback. Extending the taller opaque fence all the way to the property line would confer rights on this applicant that are not available to other corner lot owners. The applicant also raises concerns as to the parking of vehicles in this area, and maintenance issues raised by the commercial traffic. The fence setback would not affect this issue, regardless of location. The applicant is pursuing a no- parking regulation on this portion of the street from the City Council that would be directed squarely at this issue. Summary and Recommendation Planning Staff believes that a variance is justified for fence setback and construction (100% opaque) on this parcel, based on a finding that the width of the lot and the adjacent commercial development restrict reasonable use of the property by depriving him of privacy in his rear yard. However, the most appropriate location for the solid, six foot high fence would be at the 16 foot setback line established by the house rather than the property line as proposed by the applicant. With this requirement, the applicant would have the ability to enclose a 50 to 55 foot wide space in his back yard - similar to the rear yard area that could be enclosed on a conforming 80 foot wide corner lot. Because the fence setback would not affect commercial parking and maintenance of the side yard adjoining the street, this issue would be better addressed through other means, including the applicant's pursuit of parking restrictions in that area. cc: Kathy Glanzer Greg Schroeder Steve Westerhaus Terry Maurer Brian Montgomery Page 14