Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4057 Staff AnalysisAugust 15, 1983 Item No. 3 - Z-4057 Owner: Claude and Emily Arrington Address: 5814 Southwick Drive Description: Lot 9, Section A, Southgate Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District variance Requested: Rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Justification: The owner states five reasons for hardship. These are: (1) To Provide a workshop for leisure hours which are unconventional due to employment which is set at four 12 -hour days followed by four days off. (2) To relocate noise generating activities within the household to provide for day sleeping when on night shift. (3) Alternate plans considered would require loss of the only two shade trees remaining. This plan would afford a yard use area shaded by either the trees or the house all day. (4) Mrs. Arrington has an orthopedic problem which.. -makes steps and inclines difficult. She has had numerous falls, and this possibility would be reduced if an at grade relationship exists between the structures by way of the enclosed connecting passage. (5) The reconstruction and repair of several portions of the house would be accomplished at the same time, and it would be more economical to finance them all at the same time. Present Use of the Property: Residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same with additional floor space. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: There are none apparent as this lot is in a recently developed subdivision (20 years +). It is on a flat area with no drainage or street problems apparent. August 15, 1983 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analvsis: The staff view of this request is that the use and structure intended for construction imposed no adverse relationships upon the block. The only reason this matter is before the Board is to deal with a closed connection between the house and proposed shop which could be constructed as an accessory building. The 24' x 30' shop is intruding into the rear yard less than the allowable 30 percent of area coverage for such buildings. As to the hardship stated, we feel that perhaps only one is truly a hardship and that is the physical impairment. This is sufficient in our view to allow the 12' x 30' connection. C. Staff Recommendation: We recommend approval of the request as filed but would include a caution within our recommendation that the structure as proposed is entirely appropriate for conversion to a dwelling unit at some future time. We would:recommend.that the Board's approval include a prohibition of such activity. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present and briefly addressed the Board. There were no objectors present. The Board, after a brief discussion, voted to approve the application as submitted by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.