Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9416 Staff AnalysisJUNE 24, 2019 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-9416 Owner: Jeff Fuller Homes LLC Applicant: Tim Daters Address: 2811 N. Taylor Street Description- Lot 64, Grandview L1 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a new residence with reduced side and rear setbacks. 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 located at 2811 N. Taylor Street is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which is under construction. The property is located along the east side of N. Taylor Street, between N. Grandview and S. Grandview Streets. A driveway from N. Taylor Street will serve as access to the property. The new house is located 5.9 feet to 7.2 feet back from the north and south side property lines. Three (3) corners of the house are located slightly less than seven (7) feet from the side property lines. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 19 foot deck, with steps and landing, on the rear of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The deck and steps will be uncovered and unenclosed. The deck will be located 13.8 feet back from the rear (east) property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the existing residential structure with reduced side setbacks and the deck addition with a reduced rear setback. JUNE 24, 2019 ITEM NO.: A CON'T.) Z-9416 Staff is supportive of the requested side and rear setback variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The side setback encroachments are very minor in nature, ranging from 0.5 foot to 1.1 feet. This represents an encroachment of only seven (7) to 15 percent of the required side setback. Many of the residential lots in this general area are 50 feet wide and require minimum side setbacks of five (5) feet. The proposed deck encroachment into the required rear setback is also a relatively minor issue. The proposed deck will remain uncovered and unenclosed, and should have very little visual impact on the adjacent properties. Staff believes the existing side setbacks of the residence under construction and the proposed rear setback for the uncovered, unenclosed deck should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear setback variances, subject to the deck addition remaining uncovered and unenclosed on its north, south and east sides. Board of Adjustment (May 20, 2019) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the June 24, 2019 agenda based on the fact that an additional variance needed to be requested, with new notification to surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the June 24, 2019 agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Staff Update: This application was deferred to the June 24, 2019 Board of Adjustment agenda due to the fact that an additional variance needed to be requested for the new residence. The additional variance is for a reduced rear setback for new residence. The new residence is located 24.4 feet (northeast corner) to approximately 24.3 feet (southeast corner) back from the rear (east) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is now requesting a variance for the reduced rear setback for the main rear wall of the residence. Additionally, after further calculations, the proposed rear setback for the deck will be 14.3 feet and not 13.8 feet as noted previously in paragraph B. of the staff report. Staff supports the additional rear setback variance, and continues to support the rear setback variance for the deck addition and the side setback variance for the residence, as noted in paragraph C. of the staff report. The additional requested variance for reduced rear setback is extremely minor in nature, with the encroachment being only 0.6 to 0.7 foot. This reduced rear setback will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. W JUNE 24, 2019 ITEM NO.: A CON'T. Z-9416 Board of Adjustment (June 24, 2019) Jeff Fuller and Patricia and Ed Scott were present, representing the application. There were three (3) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Jeff Fuller addressed the Board in support of the application. He submitted photos of the rear yard area and newly constructed retaining wall along the rear property line. He noted that there would be a six (6) foot high wood fence on top of the retaining wall. He also pointed out that additional landscaping had been installed along the rear property line. Carolyn Lindsey Polk asked where the photos had been taken from. Mr. Fuller noted that they were taken from the rear door of the residence. Sue Gaskin addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that her main concern was the reduced setback of the deck. She noted that the new construction was not in character with the neighborhood. She also noted drainage issues. She suggested steps from the rear door instead of the deck. Christy Ward also spoke in opposition. She expressed concern with noise and privacy issues. She noted that the deck had an adverse impact on the area. Patricia Long also spoke in opposition. She noted that she had a problem with a variance being asked for after construction had begun. Mr. Fuller made additional comments regarding efforts to screen the deck from the properties to the east. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Fuller noted the retaining wall was permanent. There was a brief discussion regarding how much of the rear yard area was covered with structures. Staff made additional comments regarding the proposed rear setback of the deck. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion was approve by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The application was approved.