HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6030 Staff AnalysisAugust 28, 1995
7
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Descri tion -
zoned•
variance R -e- ested:
Justi fication:
Z-6030
Jennifer McMinn
2100 North Beechwood Street
Lot 1, Block 4, Country Club Heights
Addition
R-2
variances are requested from the
area regulations of. -Section 36-254
to permit construction of a new
residence and attached garage with
a reduced side yard setback of .5
feet and a rear yard setback of 3
feet. The Ordinance requires a
rear yard setback of 25 feet and a
side yard setback of 4.5 feet for
this lot.
1. The proposed variance is to
extend the patio to the lot
line. As the site plan shows,
there is a very steep drop off
on the south side of the lot
starting approximately at the
setback line. The reasoning
with the extension is:
A. There have to be measures
taken for soil/erosion: the
south side of this lot is very
overgrown with weeds and wild
trees and bushes. The removal
of this overgrowth will result
in nothing to hold the soil in
place. The patio would allow
the area to not be disturbed
because it would over hang the
steep slope. By placing
current drainage devices where
needed, the water from the lot
will flow into the small ditch
at the bottom of this drop off
and run correctly into the
street's drainage. I will be
landscaping the remaining soil
to protect my neighbors on
August 28, 1995
Stonewall from soil and water
run-off.
B. Safety - the extension of the
patio will allow for stairs
from the front and back of the
patio into the side yard. I
am sure you would agree that
it is always a priority to be
able to exit any area. Unless
the patio is extended, there
will be no way to get off the
patio except to jump because
there will not be enough room
for stairs.
C. Neighborhood Upkeep - this
side of this lot has always
been an eye sore to the
neighbors on Stonewall.
Anything would be an
improvement over present
conditions of the sloping
hill. This improvement would
also keep a continuing
straight line of the patio and
fence on that side of the
property versus a jagged edge.
2. Proposed covered walkway
between house and garage:
A. Safety - my personal safety is
of utmost importance. I
consider walking from my
garage into a dark back yard,
where I have to stop to open
the door, to be a safety
threat. Since this is new
construction, it is easy to
join the two structures
together. I also consider
this walkway to be safer in
the snow and rain to get to
and from the house.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family residence
2
August 28, 1995
item 7 (Con
Staff Report:
A. Engineerinc7 rsSues:
The alley has a deficient right-of-way and the proposed
location of the garage may prohibit rear access. The steep
grade from both Stonewall and Beechwood may prohibit off-
street parking. If off-street parking cannot be provided,
Traffic Engineering recommends denial.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant currently has a building permit allowing for
the construction of a two-story, single family residence
only on this lot. The residence, as allowed -.by the existing
building permit, meets all required setbacks. The applicant
is now requesting variances to allow for the construction of
a deck on the south side of the residence which would have a
reduced side yard setback and a garage addition on the rear
of the residence which would have a reduced rear yard
setback.
The garage addition will have a rear yard setback from the
alley of 3 feet. Since the garage is considered a part of
the principal structure, the ordinance requires a rear yard
setback of 25 feet. The proposed garage does not appear to
be out of character with other structures in the area. A
visual inspection revealed that nearly every property
abutting this alley has a garage or carport structure built
adjacent to the alley.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed deck addition.
The deck is to come to within a foot of the Stonewall Road
property line. Stonewall is, at this point, an extremely
narrow and congested street. The applicant's property rises
to an elevation of 5 to 6 feet above the street itself. The
houses on the south side of Stonewall, face the street and
have a reduced front yard setback of 10 to 15 feet. The
proposed deck, when combined with existing conditions, would
create an undesirable situation whereby the congestion along
this block of Stonewall Road would only be increased. Staff
cannot support the requested side yard setback variance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance for the garage addition and denial of the requested
side yard setback variance for the deck addition.
3
August 28, 1995
Item No,: 7 (Cont.)
BOA Q of -A—D--,,=M=T: (AUGUST 28, 1995)
The applicant, Jennifer McMinn, was present. There were several
objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the
Board that Ms. McMinn had amended her application, eliminating
the requested side yard setback variance. Staff offered a
recommendation of approval of the amended application for a rear
yard setback variance only. Staff informed the Board that
several of the neighbors had refused to sign the letter of
notification.
Ms McMinn addressed the Board. She presented a letter in which
she explained her efforts to notify all neighbors within 200
feet. She explained that most of the neighbors signed the
notification at least 10 days prior to the meeting, several more
signed after the 10 day period and three had not signed at all.
Chairman Terry asked if there was any one present who felt they
did not receive adequate notification. There was no response. A
motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the notification
as done by Ms. McMinn. The motion was approved by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Ms. McMinn Confirmed that she was no longer requesting a side
yard setback variance. She stated that the deck on the side of
the house would extend to the required setback line and not
beyond.
Susan Mayes, of 2021 Beechwood, addressed the Board in opposition
to the variance. She described drainage problems in the area and
expressed her concern that the construction of the proposed house
would increase water run-off. Ms Mayes referred to a 1988 Board
of Adjustment action in which the Board denied variance requests
to allow for the construction of a residence on this same lot.
Ms. Mayes concluded by stating that Ms. McMinn was proposing to
overbuild the lot.
In response to a question from Chairman Terry, Dana Carney of the
Planning Staff, stated that Ms. McMinn currently had a building
permit to construct the house without the deck and attached
garage.
Ms. Mayes spoke again in opposition to the item.
In response to a question from the Board, Dana Carney discussed
why the reduced setback of 17.5 feet to the front steps was not
viewed as a variance issue by staff. He stated that the Zoning
Enforcement staff had visited the site and determined that at
least 40% of the existing homes on this side of the block had
similar reduced front yard setbacks. (Section 36-156(2)(g)
states "where the developed lots in a block comprise 40 percent
or more of the frontage of the said block and the buildings on
those lots have an average variation in depth of not more than 6
4
August 28, 1995
Item N 7(Cont.)
feet, the average of these depths on said lots shall be the
standard depth for the balance of the block..."). Based on that
section, the Zoning Enforcement Office determined the reduced
setback to the front steps to be allowed and issued a building
permi.
David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Office, addressed the Board
concerning drainage issues in the area. Mr. Scherer stated that
the application for a single family residential building permit
does not put the burden on the applicant to improve drainage in
the public right-of-way and to solve the City's drainage
problems. Mr. Scherer stated that he had agreed to meet with
neighborhood residents to discuss drainage concerns in the area.
He stated that he wanted to separate the area's drainage problems
from the application for a variance because the two issues are
unrelated.
A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the potential
impact of the proposed construction on drainage in the area.
Julie Calhoun, of 2016 Beechwood, addressed the Board in
opposition to the item. She also stated that there are drainage
problems in the area. Ms. Calhoun presented pictures of the
drainage ditch along the south perimeter of Ms. McMinn's
property. She described, at length, drainage and run-off
problems in the area. Ms. Calhoun asked how a building permit
could be issued for Ms. McMinn's property with the drainage
problems in the area or without notifying the neighbors.
Jim Porter, of 2108 Beechwood, addressed the Board. He agreed
that there is no need to notify neighbors when a building permit
is issued. He stated that Ms. McMinn invited neighbors to view
the proposed building plans. Mr. Porter mentioned the
possibility of Ms McMinn constructing a retaining wall along the
Stonewall Road property line. Mr. Porter made reference to a
1988 letter asking former City Manager Tom Dalton to review
drainage problems in the area. Mr. Porter noted that nothing had
been done in response to that 1988 letter.
Hubert Mayes addressed the Board in opposition to the item He
questioned the setbacks on the approved building permit. James
Williams, Ms. McMinn's architect, responded that the garage was
detached at the time a building permit was requested. The
setbacks are different for a detached garage than for one that is
a part of the principal structure, thus the difference in site
plans. Mr. Williams noted that the south wall of the house has a
6.5 foot setback from the side property line. He also noted that
the covered roof structure has a 25 foot front yard setback.
In response to a question from one of the neighbors, Mr. Williams
stated that the structure will be roughly 30 feet tall from the
ground to the ridgeline.
`7
August 28, 1995
Item N. 7 (Cont.)
John Borchert asked how the neighborhood could get something done
about the drainage problems in the area. David Scherer stated
that the Public Works staff would look at the issue and attempt
to correct the situation.
After a further discussion, a motion was made to approve the
requested rear yard setback variance for the garage addition
only. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 abstaining (Withrow).
6