Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6003 Staff AnalysisJuly 31, 1995 F i��L, Owner: AddrQ 8-a Description: Zoned: Varian e Re iuested• Justification - Present Use of Pro ert : Proposed Use of Pro ert : Staff Report' A. Engineering Issues: Z-6003 Emmett Jones 5724 Hawthorne Road Lot 12, Forest Heights Place R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of a new single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. Rather than having a detached carport, the applicant proposes to attach it to the house via an enclosed breezeway. Since the carport will be attached to the house, it must maintain the setbacks of the principal structure rather than the lesser required setbacks for a detached, accessory structure. Vacant Single -Family residence Replace or repair any damaged curb or sidewalk within the public right-of-way. B. StaffAnal sxs: The applicant has removed the one story, frame residential structure from this lot and proposes to construct in its place a two story frame and brick residence and attached garage. The proposed new residence meets all required setbacks, with one exception. Since the three car garage is attached to the house with an enclosed breezeway, it is considered part of the principal dwelling and must meet the required setbacks for the principal dwelling. The garage is proposed to have a setback of 3 feet from the rear property line which is adjacent to "V" Street. The ordinance July 31, 1995 Item P_(Cont-) requires principal structures to have a 25 foot minimal rear yard setback in the R-2 district. There are two circumstances which tend to mitigate the impact of the reduced rear yard setback for the one story garage. If the garage were not attached to the house by the breezeway, it would be considered a detached accessory structure and would have to provide only a 3 foot rear yard setback. Secondly, "V" Street is an extremely substandard street which serves as not much more than an alley providing access to the rear and side yards of the abutting properties, all of which front on to other streets. There are several properties along "V" Street which have carports, garages and fences built to within 3 feet of the property line. Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports the requested variance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 1995) The applicant, Emmett Jones, was present. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, briefly discussed the issues which had surfaced regarding the notification of nearby property owners and the posting of a sign on the site. Mr. Carney noted that Mr. Jones had obtained a certified list of property owners from an abstract company. Mr. Jones mailed a cover letter and a copy of the variance application (not the "Notice of Public Hearing form") to each individual on the list. Mr. Carney also noted that the required sign had been posted on the property as early as June 7th, however the sign had subsequently come down and been replaced during the period leading up to the June 26 public hearing. Mr. Carney noted that adequate notice had been given as evidenced by phone calls received at the Planning Department and the number of individuals present at the hearing. Mr. Jones addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented drawings showing elevations of the proposed garage. He stated that he had a building permit for the house only, not including the garage. Robert Oleson, of 5717 Hawthorne Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the variance. He read from a written statement and questioned whether there was any real hardship which would justify the variance. Mr. Oleson stated that the cover letter and application mailed by Mr. Jones did not give the location of 0a July 31, 1995 Item No.: A (Con the public hearing or the Planning Department's telephone number. He asked the Board to deny the variance. Jim Lewis, of 5800 Hawthorne Street, addressed the Board in opposition to the item. He noted that several other large homes had recently been constructed in the area and he asked if these homes, as well as Mr. Jones' new home, did not exceed the allowable lot coverage percentage. Mr. Carney responded that there was no lot coverage percentage in the R-2 district, that the lot coverage is determined by the setbacks established in the district. The particular section of the Ordinance that Mr. Lewis was referring to was determined to regulate lot coverage in the R-1 district. Shirley Collins, of 5708 Hawthorne Road, spoke in opposition to the item. She stated that the proposed new home was out of character with the neighborhood. Mrs. Pat Raines, of 5720 Hawthorne Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the item. She presented a petition signed by 30 individuals opposed to the requested variance (staff did not receive the petition). She stated that she did not receive notification of the variance request. She noted that she had visited with Mr. Jones about the issue. (The list as prepared by Beach Abstract Company did not list Mrs. Raines as the owner of 5720 Hawthorne). Mrs. Raines stated that the sign was placed on the property only on June 23, 1995. Chairman Terry reminded those present that Mr. Jones had a right to build the house and that the variance issue was for the setback of the garage. Mr. Oleson stated that the garage was attached to the house making it a part of the house. He stated that Mr. Jones was overbuilding the lot. John Borchert asked who circulated the petition and questioned why it included several names of individuals who have no proximity to the subject property. Mrs. Raines stated that her son had circulated the petition. She had no explanation why persons from outside the area signed the petition. Ms. Ruth Alsop, of 2106 S. Gaines Street, addressed the Board in opposition to the variance. She stated that the location of the proposed garage would create a site distance problem for her mother, Mrs. Pat Raines, to back out of her driveway. In response to a question from Chairman Terry, Dana Carney stated that Bill Anderson, City Engineer, had personally visited the site and approved the proposed location of the garage structure. In response to a question from Chairman Terry, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson advised him to address the notification issue. She stated that the Chairman could listen to discussion of the issue and then declare the notification adequate or inadequate. Mr. Jones then presented the Board with copies of 3 July 31, 1995 Item No.:- A (Cont . ) _ the letter and application which had been mailed to nearby property owners. Ms. Dawson noted that the Bylaws are not specific on the form which must be used, only that the date, time and place of public hearing must be noted. She continued by stating although the information mailed by Mr. Jones did not indicate the place of public hearing, it is obvious by the number of people present that the location of the hearing was known. Chairman Terry then polled the Board members and determined that adequate notice had been provided. A discussion of the sign then followed. Chairman Terry noted that he had seen the sign himself. Mr. Carney reminded the Board that the posting of a sign, as with the notification of nearby property owners, was a supplemental notice required under the Board's bylaws. The legal notice had been published in the newspaper. Jim Simmons, of Hawthorne Road, stated that he had not seen the sign until the previous day. John Borchert stated that he had seen the sign on the property. Chairman Terry, after discussing the issue briefly with other Board members, determined that the sign had been placed on the property. John Borchert asked the neighbors what their primary opposition to the issue was. Mr. Oleson stated that the bottom line was the way Mr. Jones went about the process. He stated that there had been no discussions between Mr. Jones and the neighbors. Mr. Oleson also mentioned that the neighbors were distressed about the removal of several large trees from the site. Mr. Jones responded that he spoke with several of the neighbors and made no secret of his plans for the property. Mr. Oleson again questioned where the hardship issue was that would justify a variance. John Borchert asked Mr. Jones what he would do if the variance were denied. Mr. Jones responded that he would either build within the Code standards or sell the lot and build elsewhere. In response to a question from Brandon Rogers, Mr. Carney stated that Mr. Jones could reduce the size of the garage to 450 square feet and modify the breezeway so that it would be only a covered walkway from the house to the garage and then be in compliance with the Ordinance regulations governing accessory buildings. A motion was made to approve the requested setback variance. The vote was 3 ayes, 3 noes and 3 absent. Since the item failed to 4 July 31, 1995 ItpM N A n receive 5 votes for approval or denial, it was automatically deferred to the July 31, 1995 Board meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTl NTT: (JULY 31, 1995) The applicant, Rrmett Jones, was present. There were 4 objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that it had been deferred from the June 26, 1995 Board meeting due to a lack of 5 votes for approval or denial. Mr. Jones addressed the Board in support of his application. He stated that he had spoken with several neighborhood residents since the last meeting and most voiced approval of his proposal. Mr. Jones also noted that he had notified 25-28 property owners and only a small number responded negatively. Robert Oleson, of 5717 Hawthorne Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the item. He stated that there was no hardship issue and that the applicant only wanted to build a house which is too large for the lot. Pat Raines, of 5720 Hawthorne, spoke in opposition to the item. She stated that the proposed house was not appropriate for the area. Ms. Raines reminded the Board of the petition which she presented at the June 26, 1995 meeting. Kathleen Oleson, of 5717 Hawthorne Road, spoke in opposition to the item. She asked that Mr. Jones be required to build within Ordinance guidelines. Ms. Oleson also questioned what hardship Mr. Jones had presented to the Board. James Lasley, of 5600 Country Club Blvd., addressed the Board in support of the item. He noted that other variances had been approved in the area. Mr. Lasley stated that he was most concerned about the loss of trees when Mr. Jones cleared the site. Chairman Terry asked staff if there was an area coverage issue related to the proposed garage. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the garage was part of the principal structure and the area coverage guidelines dealt with accessory buildings. Mr. Lasley stated that many homes in the area have only a one car garage which leads to vehicles being parked on the street. He stated that it would be better if more persons had a three car garage as was proposed by the applicant. Mr. Oleson stated that the issue was not the three car garage but compliance with Ordinance standards. Vivian Doyne asked how much of a variance was requested. Mr. Carney responded that a 25 foot rear yard setback was 5 July 31, 1995 item N A(Contj required by the Ordinance and the applicant was requesting a 3 foot rear yard setback. In response to a question from Chairman Terry, Mr. Jones stated that he needed the three car garage and had no desire to modify the plans. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the requested rear yard setback variance. The vote was 1 aye, 4 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstaining (Doyne). Since the item failed to receive 5 votes either for approval or denial at two Board meetings, it was automatically denied. 6