HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6169 Staff AnalysisJuly 29, 1996
Item No.: 4
File No
Owner:
Address:
Description-
Zoned:
Variance Reggested:
justification:
Present Use of Propel:
Proposed Use of Propel:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Comments:
Z-6169
Chuck and Judy Stokes
39 Valley Estates Drive
Lot 34R, Pleasant Valley Estates
R-2
A variance is requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 to permit construction of an
addition which crosses a platted
36.5 foot building line.
Applicant's Statement: Our purpose
in making this request is to attach
a veranda (porch) to the existing
home to enhance the appearance of
the property. Currently, the plans
for the proposed porch would
require an encroachment, not to
exceed 7 feet, to accomplish this
construction. This addition would
not affect the width of the current
structure.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
9
A development permit is required prior to construction.
House is located in the floodplain. Applicants are required
by City Ordinance to maintain the curbs gutters and
sidewalks adjacent to property. Any of these items damaged
prior to or because of construction shall be repaired at the
owners expense.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a porch addition to the
front of the existing home located at 39 Valley Estates
Drive. The addition will extend a maximum of 10 feet out
from the front of the home and will cross a platted 36.5
foot building line. Due to the curvature of the lot and the
July 29, 1996
Item Na.' 4 Cant.
fact that the home now sits approximately 38 feet from the
front property line, the new addition will result in a front
yard setback of approximately 30 feet. valley Estates Drive
is a private street and the property line is located at the
curb of the street. This means the addition will be located
approximately 30 feet from the curb of the street.
The property slopes down from the street to a point at the
rear of the property which is in the 100 year floodplain.
The porch addition will have a, roof but will be unenclosed.
Staff does not believe the proposed addition will adversely
impact the adjacent properties and is supportive of the
requested variance.
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. Staff RecommendatiOn:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line
variance subject to the following conditions:
1. A replat of the lot reflecting the change in the
building line as approved by the Board.
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 1996)
The Chairman asked Staff to present its recommendation and the
request. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of
the variance proposal and the staff recommendation.of approval.
The Chairman then asked if there was someone present representing
the application. Mrs. Judy Stokes was present. She came forward
and offered comments. Mrs. Stokes was asked if she had any
specific comments about the staff recommendation and she stated
no. However, she did want to offer a comment on the downsizing
of the addition. She offered some dimensions relative to the new
proposal. She stated that the new proposal would bring the
addition approximately 2 feet closer to the street than the one
previously submitted. At the conclusion of her remarks, the
Chairman asked if she understood that a replat of the lot would
have to be accomplished if the Board of Adjustment approves the
variance as well as complying with Public Works, -comments. Mrs.
Stokes stated yes and that she understood.
The Chairman asked if there was comment from the board and none
was offered. He then asked if there others present in the
2
July 29, 1996
item No.: 4 Cont.
audience who wished to speak on the issue. There being none, he
stated that he would entertain a motion. A motion was made to
approve the variance based on the staff's recommendation. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3