HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6170 Staff AnalysisJuly 29, 1996
File No.• Z-6170
Owner: Eddie and Desaree Mauldin
Address: #1 Baltimore Street
Description• Lot 19, Granite Heights Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Regxue_sted: A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a patio
cover addition with a reduced rear
yard setback.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: This letter
is to request a variance on
property located at the above
address to install an aluminum
cover over a patio area. At
present, usage of the area is
limited because of its location on
the southwest corner, across the
back of the dwelling. The sun is
in the area as early as 9:00 a.m.
With covering the area could be
used beginning early morning thru
mid -evening for sitting, grilling
and protection to the outdoor
furniture.
A variance is requested because the
area (concrete slah),extends to the
property line, separated by a chain
link fence and a nine (9") inch
rock wall. The owner of adjacent
property does not object to my
having the roof installed.
Having this covering installed in
my opinion, will not cause
interference to any homeowner's
property relating to his/her
ingress, egress, fire hydrant
blockage, existing or future
utilities nor deface the appearance
of their property.
Present Use of Pra ert : Single Family residence
July 29, 1996
Item No.: 5 Cont.
proposed ❑se of PK ert : Single Family residence
Staff Report:
A. blit Works Comments:
No Public Works Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct an aluminum cover over
an existing patio area at the rear of the home located at #1
Baltimore Drive. The patio cover will extend nearly to the
rear property line. The ordinance allows R-2 zoned corner
lots to have a reduced rear yard setback of 8 feet when a 25
foot exterior side yard setback is provided. The property
is enclosed on 3 sides by a 25 foot building line which
reduces the availability of buildable area.
The applicant's property backs up to the side yard of the
adjacent property at #11 Baltimore Drive. The home on this
adjacent property is located just forward of the proposed
patio cover and has a side yard setback of approximately 8
feet from the common property line. A four foot tall
chainlink fence separates the two properties.
The applicant's patio area is somewhat enclosed on the east
side by a four foot tall brick wall. The patio opens to the
yard.
As the applicant is not proposing a new use area but is
putting an unenclosed cover over the existing patio, staff
is able to support the requested variance. The applicant
must install guttering or another approved device to assure
that water does not runoff onto the adjacent property and
the patio area should remain open and unenclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance to allow for the installation of an aluminum patio
cover subject to the following conditions:
1. The patio area is to remain open and unenclosed on all
sides other than where it abuts the house.
2. Guttering or another approved device must be installed
on the patio cover to assure that water does not run
onto the adjacent property.
3. No portion of the patio cover's eave or overhang may
extend beyond the property line.
2
July 29,-1996
Item No.: 5(Cont.)
BOARD DF ADJL7STMENT: (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 as well as the staff's recommendation of approval.
wood offered a statement that there was no objector of record and
the abutting owner concurred in this proposal. The Chairman then
asked if there was someone present representing the application
and wished to come forward.
The owner, Mr. Eddie Maulden, came forward and offered a brief
comment stating that he had no problem with the staff
recommendation. At the conclusion of Mr. Maulden's comments, the
Chairman then asked if there were comments from the Board of
Adjustment. There being none, he requested the same of the
audience and there was no one present to offer additional comment
on this application. The Chairman then asked for a motion on the
application. A motion was made for the application be approved
based on the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded and
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3