HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6123 Staff AnalysisApril 29, 1996
Item No_:
File No.: Z-6123
owner: William Bradford Sherman
Address: 5320 Edgewood Road
Description• Plot 128 and part of Plot 127,
Prospect Terrace No. 2
Zoned• R-2
Variance Re a ted: Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to permit construction
of a carport addition with reduced
front and side yard setbacks and
which crosses a platted 20 foot
building line.
justification: Applicant's Statement: The
present carport is supported at the
southeast corner by a pipe column
which sits directly on the east
property line. This column
supports a 6" "I" beam which then
supports the carport roof. This
roof follows the existing angled
property line 5 feet or so from the
eastern boundary and also projects
7 feet or so towards the front
(south) property line.
My client proposes to construct a
new 2 car carport, breezeway and
front entry portico that will
complement the exterior of the
house and be functionally and
aesthetically improved in
comparison to the existing carport
structure.
We are asking that we be allowed to
set the southeast column support
for the new carport 12" from the
east property line (this would be
the closest point since the
property line angles away from the
house), and 7 feet past (south of)
the 20' front yard setback line.
April 29, 1996
Item No.• 4 (Cont.)
Present Use of Pro ert
prg�osgd U§e gf Pr r
Staff Report•
A. Public Works Comments:
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
Repair of any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk is the
responsibility of the property owner according to City
Ordinance.
B, staff Anal sis•
5320 Edgewood Road is an R-2 zoned property containing a one
story, brick and frame residential structure with a carport
extending out from the residence toward the street. The
existing carport is built across a 20 foot building line and
has a front yard setback of approximately 13 feet. The roof
line of the existing carport has a side yard setback of 5
feet from the east property line but is supported by posts
and beams which actually extend to the property line. The
applicant proposes to remove this structure and build in its
place a new carport, breezeway and entry portico. The new
carport will maintain the existing 13 foot front yard
setback and will extend to a point 12 inches from the east
property line. The R-2 district regulations require a side
yard setback of 8 feet for this lot. The 20 foot building
line establishes the front yard setback. The applicant
states that the new carport will complement the exterior of
the house and will be aesthetically improved in comparison
to the existing carport.
Staff is able to support the request since the proposed
carport will not extend any further into the required yard
setbacks than the existing carport.
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.
C. gaff Recommendati n:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front and side
yard setback and building line variances subject to the
following conditions:
1. compliance with Public Work Comments
2
April 29, 1996
Item No_: 4 (Cont.
2. The carport addition is to remain open and unenclosed
on all sides other than the point at which it is
attached to the house.
3. A replat of the lot reflecting the change in the
building line as approved by the Board.
4. Appropriate guttering or similar devices are to be
installed on the carport to prevent water run-off onto
the adjacent property.
B ARD OF ADJUSTMENT: STMENT: (APRIL 29, 1996)
Ellen Yeary was present representing the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval, with conditions.
Ms. Yeary offered no additional comments other than to state that
the applicant would comply with all conditions.
A motion was made to approve the requested setback and building
line variances subject to compliance with those conditions
outlined in the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by
a vote of 9 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent.
3