HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6027 Staff AnalysisAugust 28, 1995
I m Na. 4
File No.:
Owner.,
Addresa:
DescriptiO
honed:
Variance Reguested:
_justification:
Present Use of Pro ert :
Proposed Use of Pro ert :
Staff Reort•
A. Encrineerin Tssues:
Z-6027
Alicia C. Lashbrook
7 Rosewood Circle
Lot 14, Oakwood Manor Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the height and area
exceptions of Section 36-156 to
permit construction of a detached
carport which is to be located less
than 60 feet from the front
property line and which is to cross
a platted 25 foot building line.
The applicant desires to have
covered parking for her
automobiles. The house currently
has no carport or garage, the
original carport having been
enclosed by previous owners.
Adding the garage should also add
to the aesthetic value of the
property in the applicant's
opinion.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
Repair any damage caused to curb and gutter.
B. Staff Analysis:
This existing single family residence currently has no
garage or carport, the original carport having been enclosed
by previous owners. The applicant desires to construct a 20
foot by 20 foot, freestanding carport structure in the front
yard. The carport will be built over the existing driveway
and will be separated from the house by approximately 1
foot. The carport will be built across a platted 25 foot
August 28, 1995
It m No.: 4 Lnt.
building line and will have a front yard setback of 6.5
feet. As a freestanding accessory structure, the Ordinance
requires a 60 foot setback.
Due to the slope of the lot and the existence of a rock wall
along the south side of the driveway, there is no other
place on the property to construct a garage or carport.
The property adjacent to the south, which would appear to be
most affected by the variance, is at a higher elevation than
the applicant's property. The visual impact of the proposed
carport on this adjacent property should be lessened by the
difference in elevation and the existence of several large
shrubs along the common property line.
Although the carport has only a 6.5 foot setback from the
property line, it will actually sit approximately 16 feet
behind the curb line of the street.
If the building line variance is approved, the applicant
will have to do a one lot replat to reflect the change
approved by the Board. The applicant should review the
filing procedure with the circuit clerk to determine if the
replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports
the requested variances.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback and building line variances subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. A replat of the lot which reflects the change in the
building line as approved by the Board of Adjustment.
3. The carport structure is to be unenclosed on all sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(AUGUST 28, 1995)
The applicant, Alicia Lashbrook, was present. There were three
objectors present. staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval. Staff informed the Board that several of the
required notification signatures were not obtained until August
21, 1995, seven days prior to the meeting rather than the ten
days required by the Board's bylaws.
Ms. Lashbrook addressed the Board. She explained that she was
out of town TDY with the National Guard and was unable to obtain
all of the signatures within the required time frame. Ms.
2
August 28, 1995
Item 4 on
Lashbrook stated that she had spoken with her neighbors days
before obtaining the signatures but that she did not have the
notification sheet with her at the time. She stated that it
would be possible to place the carport in the rear yard and
access it from a point on "I" Street but that it would be very
difficult due to the steep terrain.
Mark Peterson of 17 Rosewood Circle addressed the Board in
opposition to the variance.
Allen Deislinger, of it Rosewood Circle, addressed the Board in
opposition to the variance. He stated that there is access to
the rear of the lot from "I" Street.
John Borchert asked Ms. Lashbrook when she verbally notified the
neighbors of the variance request. Ms. Lashbrook responded that
she had spoken with the neighbors 8-9 days prior to the hearing.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the notification
as done by Ms. Lashbrook. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Ms. Lashbrook presented photographs to the Board depicting the
neighborhood and the proposed carport location.
In response to a question from Chairman Terry, Ms. Lashbrook
stated that the proposed carport would be located over the
portion of the driveway where she currently parks her two
vehicles.
Ms. Lashbrook stated that she had hired an architect to design
the carport and that it would blend with the design of the house.
In response to a question from Rebecca Finney, Ms. Lashbrook
stated that she had just received the architect's drawings and
had been unable to show them to the neighbors.
Mr. Deislinger made a closing comment opposing the variance.
In response to a question from John. Borchert, Ms. Lashbrook
stated that two contractors had told her it would be difficult to
construct the carport in the rear yard due to the slope of the
property and drainage problems.
A motion was made to approve the requested front yard setback and
building line variances subject to the three conditions outlined
in the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by a vote
of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3