TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: February 11, 2025
RE: A25-03: Variance Request - Fence/Wall Setback at 801 Greenland Drive
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 - Malik Davis
Relationship to Strategic Plan:
• Goal 2: A Responsive City Government Driving Economic Diversity and Sustainability
o Objective 2.1: Strengthen and diversify the City’s tax base.
• Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
o Objective 4.5: Foster vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods.
Executive Summary
The applicant, Patrick Richling, seeks a variance from City Code Section 30-5.D.4, which establishes setback requirements for fences and walls abutting roads with two or more lanes. The current setback requirement would place the fence within two feet of the house, making it impractical and preventing the enclosure of an existing air conditioning unit. The applicant requests a variance allowing the fence to extend 12 feet from the corner of the dwelling to maintain the yard's privacy, security, and functional use.
Property Information
• Address: 801 Greenland Drive
• Owner: Patrick Richling
• Applicant: Patrick Richling
• Zoning: SF-6 (Single-Family Residential 6)
• Future Land Use Designation: MDR (Medium Density Residential)
• Existing Use: Residential
• Parcel ID: 0428708052000
Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses
• North: SF-6 (Single-Family Residential 6) - Residential
• South: SF-6 (Single-Family Residential 6) - Residential
• East: SF-6 (Single-Family Residential 6) - Residential
• West: SF-6 (Single-Family Residential 6) - Residential
Issues & Analysis
Variance Request Overview
The applicant requests a variance from Section 30-5.D.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which regulates fence and wall setbacks for properties abutting roads with two or more lanes.
Setback Requirements Under the UDO ([41†source]):
• Fences 36 inches or shorter may be placed at the property line.
• Fences taller than 36 inches must adhere to the lesser of a five-foot setback or alignment with the corner of the dwelling.
Due to the widening of Bragg Boulevard in 1963, the current setback requirement would place the fence within 18 inches of the house, preventing full enclosure of the air conditioning unit and limiting the functional use of the yard.
The applicant requests a variance allowing the fence to extend 12 feet from the corner of the dwelling, citing:
• The practical difficulty of the strict setback requirement would force the fence placement to be impractically close to the structure.
• The unique site condition of the Bragg Boulevard expansion altered the property's setback conditions.
• There is a minimal impact on surrounding properties, noting that a neighboring property at 600 Pearl Street has a portion of its structure extending beyond the applicant’s proposed fence line.
Factors for Consideration
• Ordinance Compliance: The variance request seeks relief from setback standards. The commission must determine whether the request aligns with the ordinance’s intent to regulate visibility, safety, and aesthetics.
• Land Use Compatibility: The proposed fence location is consistent with existing structures in the area. A neighboring property at 600 Pearl Street has a portion of its structure extending beyond the applicant’s proposed fence line.
• Historical Context & Unique Site Conditions: The widening of Bragg Boulevard in 1963 reduced the usable lot area, creating an unusually restrictive setback that does not apply to many neighboring properties.
• Precedent Concerns: Approval could set a precedent for future variance requests related to fence setbacks in similar circumstances.
• Alternative Compliance Options: The commission may evaluate whether other solutions exist, such as a reduced extension or an alternate fence placement, that balance functional needs with ordinance compliance.
Conclusion
The variance request presents a legitimate need for improved privacy, security, and functionality while exceeding the dimensional limitations in Section 30-5.D.4 of the UDO. The request must be evaluated against the variance standards outlined in Section 30-2.C.14.f, which require findings that:
1. Hardship arises from strict ordinance application, not personal circumstances.
2. Unique site conditions (such as historic road widening and lot configuration) necessitate the variance.
3. The variance is the minimum action necessary for reasonable use of the property.
4. The variance aligns with the ordinance’s intent and preserves its spirit.
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained.
The Zoning Commission must evaluate evidence to determine compliance with these criteria. Key considerations include:
• Whether alternative compliance options meet the applicant’s needs while minimizing deviation from ordinance standards.
• The precedent-setting potential of granting this variance for similar properties.
• The relationship between the proposed fence location and existing neighborhood patterns.
The decision must align with evidentiary procedures in Sections 30-2.B.14 and 30-2.C.14 of the UDO.
Budget Impact
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options for Commission Action
The Zoning Commission may:
1. Approve the variance if all five findings of fact are met.
2. Approve with conditions to mitigate concerns.
3. Deny the variance if one or more findings of fact are unmet.
Motion to Approve the Variance (as requested or with conditions)
If approved, the commission must state supporting evidence for all five required findings:
1. Hardship due to strict ordinance application
_______________________________________________________________
2. Hardship results from unique site conditions
_______________________________________________________________
3. Variance is the minimum action necessary
_______________________________________________________________
4. Variance preserves the ordinance’s intent
_______________________________________________________________
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained
_______________________________________________________________
Motion to Deny the Variance
The commission must identify which of the five findings were unmet, citing specific evidence if denied.
1. Hardship due to strict ordinance application
_______________________________________________________________
2. Hardship results from unique site conditions
_______________________________________________________________
3. Variance is the minimum action necessary
_______________________________________________________________
4. Variance preserves the ordinance’s intent
_______________________________________________________________
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained
_______________________________________________________________
Attachments
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan