Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6025 Staff AnalysisSeptember 25," 1995 Item No. B FFi�: _Q r : A r Des cri ion. zoned- variance Reauestea: Justification: Present Use of Propert : Proposed Use of PrQpert : Staff Re ort• A. En ineerin Issues: Z-6025 Margaret K. Anderson Estate/ David Mangan, Agent _21©,0' North Cleveland Street Lot 4, Block 5, Pleasant Hills Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced side yard setback of 0.1 feet. The Ordinance requires a side yard setback of 7.55 feet for this lot. Mrs. Anderson's sister, Lucille Padgett, currently occupies the home. Mrs. Padgett is in ill health and needs the assistance of other people in the bathroom with her at the same time. The existing bathroom only has a 5 foot by 2 1/2 foot area of moving space. The proposed addition would allow for an enlarged bathroom and additional walk-in closet/storage space. Single Family residence Single Family residence Right-of-way required for Cleveland Street is 50 feet, dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way to comply with Master Street Plan. If addition does not have adverse effects on adjacent property due to blockage of the drainage swale that exists on the side property line, then there is no objection. Repair any damage caused to curb and gutter. September 25, 1995 It9l,m B n . B. gtaff An 1 i : The applicant proposes to construct an addition to this existing residence. The addition will allow for the expansion of the existing bathroom. as well as providing a walk-in closet/storage space. The proposed addition will have a reduced side yard setback of 0.1 feet. The Ordinance requires a side yard setback of 7.55 feet for this lot. The lot adjacent to the north is occupied by a single family residence with a side yard setback of 7 to 8 feet. The applicant's proposed addition, with a setback of 0.1 feet would not allow for the construction of eaves and guttering to prevent water run-off onto this adjacent lot. Staff's opinion is that there are other alternatives available, including constructing the addition onto either the front or the rear of the -existing house. Since the proposed addition could negatively impact the adjacent property and other alternatives appear to be available, staff cannot support the requested variance. C. Staff Re ommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance. BQARD OF ADJUSTMENT (AUGUST 28, 1995) The applicant, David Mangan, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. David Mangan addressed the Board in support of his application. He presented a drawing showing the proposed addition in greater detail. He stated that the pitch of the roof was such that water would run off the back and front of the addition and not off the side onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Mangan stated that the addition was only 5.4 feet wide, leaving a side yard setback from the wall of the addition to the property line of 1.15 feet. This setback would allow for an eave which does not extend beyond the property line. Mr. Mangan explained that his plan was to enlarge the bathroom on the north side of the house as this was the one bathroom which is on an exterior wall. He stated that this bathroom was the one with most direct access to a bedroom. A discussion then followed during details on his plans to expand the proposed addition. 2 which Mr. Mangan gave greater existing bathroom into the September 25, 1995 item B (Cont.) John Borchert and Chairman Terry suggested expanding the bedroom out into the rear yard and then enlarging the bathroom within the interior of the house. This would eliminate the need for a side yard variance. Mr. Mangan stated the biggest consideration in that particular proposal was cost. Chairman Terry stated that a 1 foot side yard setback seemed pretty tight to him. John Borchert asked how close the house to the north was to its property line. Mr. Mangan responded that it was set back 7-8 feet from the side property line. Huff Easterly, of Illo N. Cleveland, addressed the Board in opposition to the requested variance. She stated that the houses currently had a minimum side yard setback and are fairly close together. Ms. Easterly stated that she was afraid the proposed addition would add to a drainage problem already in existence on her property. She concluded by stating that she was also concerned about a loss of privacy with an addition bringing the neighbor's house so close to the property line. Ms. Easterly stated that Mr. Mangan had other alternatives available. She showed a picture of the area between the two houses to the Board. Mr. Mangan responded that the addition would have no windows on the side adjacent to Ms. Easterly's property and that he would split the cost of a privacy fence. Mr. Mangan was asked if he had obtained an estimate on putting the addition on the back of the house. He responded that he had not but that he assumed it would be more expensive to extend the bedroom wall out rather than putting a 5 foot opening in the north wall as he is proposing. John Borchert suggested deferring the item to allow Mr. Mangan to obtain an estimate on the feasibility and cost of constructing the addition to the rear of the house. Mr. Borchert stated that the feasibility of placing the addition on the rear of the house might sway his opinion on the request. Mr. Mangan stated that he agreed to a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the September 25, 1995 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 1995) The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that no new information had been submitted by the applicant. The item was moved to the end of the agenda to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The applicant did not appear. 3 September 25, 1995 IL'teM H C n. Buff Easterly, of 1110 N. Cleveland, addressed the Board in opposition to the item. She stated that the applicant had other options available and she was concerned about the proposed addition creating drainage problems. A motion was made to approve the requested side yard setback variance. The motion was denied by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. 4