Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4261 Staff AnalysisJune 18, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-4261 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Carroll and Frances Garner Pleasant Forest Cove Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition "R-2" Single Family From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit a 40 -inch encroachment. The house is completed and has had all the required inspections except for the final. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: A. B. Single Family Same Engineering Issues Engineering reports they have no adverse comments. Staff Analysis The issue at hand is the construction of a garage which encroaches into the side yard setback. The garage and residence are 90 percent completed, and that is the applicant's justification for the variance. It is the staff's understanding that the building plans that were approved by the City showed the garage to be a little over 8 feet from the property line which is in conformance with the setback requirements for the "R-2" District. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8 -foot side yard maximum in the "R-2" District. During the construction of this house, the outer wall of the garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north property .line and creating an encroachment into the side yard. This reduced the setback to approximately 58 inches. Because of this encroachment, there is poor separation between this new structure and June 18, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued the residence immediately to the north and produces an undesirable situation. The property in question is higher than the adjacent lot and that makes the intrusion into the setback more visible. Also because of this lot being higher, the residents at #4 Pleasant Forest Cove have experienced some flooding since the construction of the house at #2 Pleasant Forest Cove. They have indicated that there were no problems with flooding prior to construction. Based on this runoff problem and a visual inspection of the site, it appears that the location of the garage has impacted the neighborhood. It is unclear as to why the garage was constructed in a configuration other than what was approved by the Building Permits Office. Because there are no apparent hardships, it appears that the garage was enlarged just for that reason. The staff does not support the request because there is no true hardship and the variance has not been justified. (See accompanying letters for additional information.) C. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends denial of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and described the issue at hand. He indicated that the residence had received all the necessary inspections except for the final. He stated that it would cost approximately $15,000 to remove the garage wall and all of the utilities that enter the structure at that point. Mr. Murray felt that this did create a hardship for the owner. He then distributed photos of the structure to the Board of Adjustment members. Mr. Murray briefly discussed the flooding issue. Mr. Garner then spoke and stated that he had depended on somebody else and was not sure how the encroachment took place. He also stated that he had experienced some problems with vandalism. At this point, staff distributed a memo from Roy Beard, Building Official, to the Board of Adjustment members. This memo described the sequence`of events and inspections that were made by the City. Mr. Murray spoke again and stated that the original plans were correct, but that those plans had been lost. After that, a duplicate set of plans was June 18, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued used. Mr. Garner informed the Board of Adjustment members that he did not realize he had a problem until he was told to file for a variance. He stated that he was aware of the complaints from the neighboring property owners. He said that he would try to address the drainage/flooding problem but by being the highest point may present some difficulties. Kenny Scott of the City Zoning Enforcement Office addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated that a building permit was issued on June 21, 1983, and the plan submitted had an 8' 2" setback and that additional construction took place after the original inspection. Bobby Gravett, #4 Pleasant Forest Cove, the property to the north, objected to the variance. He stated that since the construction of the structure in question, his property had experienced water problems including flooding of the kitchen. His biggest concern was encroachment and how it would effect his property values because of #2 Pleasant Forest Cove being the high point. Mr. Gravett said that the garage with the encroachment was creating an impact on his property and it should be moved back. Mr. Murray spoke again and suggested that Mr. Gravett's property also had a possible encroachment problem. He also indicated that an addition that the Gravetts had constructed may be the source of some of the flooding. Mr. Gravett responded to Mr. Murray's comment and said the runoff is not coming from their property. He again emphasized their concern with the effects on property values and the desirability of the neighborhood. Mr. Gravett had not received a professional estimate to determine the monetary impact on his property. Mr. Garner then suggested that he would retain an impartial realtor to inspect the situation and make a determination on the value question. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the water problem be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The vote was: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed for lack of five positive votes and the variance was denied. A second motion was made to defer the item, but it was withdrawn. There was discussion about possible remedies and that two parties should try to work together because there appears to be room to negotiate. A question was raised about the structure being occupied until the matter is resolved and acted on. The possibility of issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed. After some discussion, a motion was made recommending that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the living portion exclusively and that the owners assume all further consequences. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion to defer the item to the July 16 meeting passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B.L. Murphree). Mr. Murray questioned the various motions and there was further discussion. The Board of Adjustment asked that the building inspector directly involved with the issue be present at the next meeting. July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Z-4261 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Carroll and Frances Garner Pleasant Forest Cove Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition "R-2" Single Family From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit a 40 -inch encroachment. The house is completed and has had all the required inspections except for the final. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues Engineering reports they have no adverse comments. B. Staff Analysis The issue at hand is the construction of a garage which encroaches into the side yard setback. The garage and residence are 90 percent completed, and that is the applicant's justification for the variance. It is the staff's understanding that the building plans that were approved by the City showed the garage to be a little over 8 feet from the property line which is in conformance with the setback requirements for the "R-2" District. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8 -foot side yard maximum in the "R-2" District. During the construction of this house, the outer wall of the garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north property line and creating an encroachment into the side yard. This reduced the setback to approximately 58 inches. Because of this encroachment, there is poor separation between this new structure and July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued the residence immediately to the north and produces an undesirable situation. The property in question is higher than the adjacent lot and that makes the intrusion into the setback more visible. Also because of this lot being higher, the residents at #4 Pleasant Forest Cove have experienced some flooding since the construction of the house at #2 Pleasant Forest Cove. They have indicated that there were no problems with flooding prior to construction. Based on this runoff problem and a visual inspection of the site, it appears that the location of the garage has impacted the neighborhood. It is unclear as to why the garage was constructed in a configuration other than what was approved by the Building Permits Office. Because there are no apparent hardships, it appears that the garage was enlarged just for that reason. The staff does not support the request because there is no true hardship and the variance has not been justified. (See accompanying letters for additional information.) C. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends denial of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and described the issue at hand. He indicated that the residence had received all the necessary inspections except for the final. He stated that it would cost approximately $15,000 to remove the garage wall and all of the utilities that enter the structure at that point. Mr. Murray felt that this did create a hardship for the owner. He then distributed photos of the structure to the Board of Adjustment members. Mr. Murray briefly discussed the flooding issue. Mr. Garner then spoke and stated that he had depended on somebody else and was not sure how the encroachment took place. He also stated that he had experienced some problems with vandalism. At this point, staff distributed a memo from Roy Beard, Building Official, to the Board of Adjustment members. This memo described the sequence of events and inspections that were made by the City. Mr. Murray spoke again and stated that the original plans were correct, but that those plans had been lost. After that, a duplicate set of plans was h July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued used. Mr. Garner informed the Board of Adjustment members that he did not realize he had a problem until he was told to file for a variance. He stated that he was aware of the complaints from the neighboring property owners. He said that he would try to address the drainage/flooding problem but by being the highest point may present some difficulties. Kenny Scott of the City Zoning Enforcement Office addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated that a building permit was issued on June 21, 1983, and the plan submitted had an 8' 2" setback and that additional construction took place after the original inspection. Bobby Gravett, #4 Pleasant Forest Cove, the property to the north, objected to the variance. He stated that since the construction of the structure in question, his property had experienced water problems including flooding of the kitchen. His biggest concern was encroachment and how it would effect his property values because of #2 Pleasant Forest Cove being the high point. Mr. Gravett said that the garage with the encroachment was creating an impact on his property and it should be moved back. Mr. Murray spoke again and suggested that Mr. Gravett's property also had a possible encroachment problem. He also indicated that an addition that the Gravetts had constructed may be the source of some of the flooding. Mr. Gravett responded to Mr. Murray's comment and said the runoff is not coming from their property. He again emphasized their concern with the effects on property values and the desirability of the neighborhood. Mr. Gravett had not received a professional estimate to determine the monetary impact on his property. Mr. Garner then suggested that lie would retain an impartial realtor to inspect the situation and make a determination on the value question. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the water problem be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The vote was: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed for lack of five positive votes and the variance was denied. A second motion was made to defer the item, but it was withdrawn. There was discussion about possible remedies and that two parties should try to work together because there appears to be room to negotiate. A question was raised about the structure being occupied until the matter is resolved and acted on. The possibility of issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed. After some discussion, a motion was made recommending that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the living portion exclusively and that the owners assume all further consequences. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion to defer the item to the July 16 meeting passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B.L. Murphree). Mr. Murray questioned the various motions and there was further discussion. The Board of Adjustment asked that the building inspector directly involved with the issue be present at the next meeting. July 16, 1984 Item No. B -- Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector present. Mr. Garner discussed some possible solutions for screening the wall and addressing the drainage problem. He described the landscaping plan which would include trees and shrubs planted along the wall and the type of drainage structure to be utilized. Mr. Garner stated that he had obtained a cost estimate for doing the necessary improvements. Mr. Murray also discussed the drainage issue. Mr. Garner indicated to the Board that he was unable to meet with the Gravetts', the property owners to the north, as directed by the Board of Adjustment. He stated that he tried to contact the Gravetts on several occasions, but was unable to reach them. Both Mr. Garner and Mr. Murray described the market analysis that had been undertaken by Rainey Realty. The analysis suggested that the structure in question would increase the value for the neighborhood and that it would not impact the residence to the north. Kim Gravett, property owner to the north, spoke and stated that she was still opposed to the request. The wall was to close and she felt that nothing could be done to solve that problem. Again, Mr. Garner stated that he was unable to contact the Gravetts. Ms. Gravett indicated that they were usually home in the evenings. Roy Beard, Chief of -Protective Inspections, then spoke. Mr. Beard described to the Board members when footing inspections are made and how they are made. The footings are open when inspected and the property lines are marked. The various yards are measured and Mr. Beard stated that mistakes of inches were not uncommon. The footing inspection for the structure in question was made on November 15, 1983, and adequate yard spaces were provided at that time. No further verification was made. At some later time, the encroachment was made and Mr. Garner was notified that the structure was in violation. Mr. Garner was informed of the situation after the sheetrock had been installed. He was notified in person and by phone conversations. Mr. Garner felt that there was a hardship involved with the request and that he was willing to resolve the situation. Mr. Murray stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for the dwelling portion of the structure. A temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed by the various parties. Ms. Gravett spoke again and stated that the Bill of Assurance also required setbacks. She was questioned by various Board of Adjustment members about possible compromises. Ms. Gravett indicated that the overall appearance was still the problem and there was no solution to that situation. There was additional discussion about the proposed landscaping and other improvements by the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made to recommend that the variance be denied. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Ronald Woods). The variance request was denied.