HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6210 Staff AnalysisNovember 25, 1996
Item No.: 2
_FileNO.:
Owner;
A.ddress:
.ZLoned:
Varianc��_� �este�d:
,justification:
present Use of Property:
ProDosed Use of Propert :
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Comments:
No issues
B. Staff An�k_�sis�:
z-6213
Gail Kempner O'Shea
2916 Circlewood
Lot 154, Kingwood Place
R-2
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the area exceptions of
Section 36-156 to permit a carport
which is located less than 60 feet
from the front property line and
which is built across a platted
building line.
The structure has already been
placed on the property, over the
existing driveway, by the applicant
who was not aware of reg-ulations
which prohibit its placement in
this location.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
This issue is before the Board as a result of action by the
Codes Enforcement staff.
The property at 2916 Circlewood Road is occupied by a single
story, frame residential structure which is typical of the
neighborhood,. Also, typical of the neighborhood, the house
has no carport or garage. Several persons in the area have
expanded their houses by enclosing their carports or
garages.
November 25, 1996
Iteft No.: 2 (Cont.)
The applicant, unaware of restrictions against doing so,
placed a metal, carport structure over the driveway in front
of the house. The carport is located beyond the platted 30
foot building line and has a front yard setback of no more
than I foot. The ordinance requires accessory buildings to
have a minimum setback of 60 feet from the front property
line.
The carport has been placed over the driveway, covering an
area which has already been used for vehicle parking. With
some modification to placement of the structure, staff can
support the requested variances.
The structure is separated from the house by approximately 9
feet, leaving only 10-11 feet between the structure and the
curb of the street. Staff believes the structure should be
moved closer to the house to provide 20 feet between the
carport and the curb. This would result in a setback of 8-9
feet from the front property line rather than the existing I
foot.
Additionally, the carport must remain open and unenclosed on
all sides to provide adequate movement of light and air.
Leaving the structure open and unenclosed could help to
mitigate the visual impact of the structure as well.
Should the Board approve the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat to reflect the
change in the building line. 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 and
setback variances subject to the following conditions:
1. The carport is to be moved closer to the house to
provide 20 feet between the structure and the curb of
the street.
2. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all
sides.
3. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF AD�19.S_TMIENT:
(NOVEMBER 25, 1996)
The applicant, Gail O'Shea, was present. There were two
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, with conditions. It was noted that 5 letters of
2
NOvembbr 25, 1996
tem No.: 2. (Cant
opposition from neighborhood residents had been presented to the
Board.
Ms. O'Shea addressed the Board. She stated that she was aware
that there was some opposition to the StYle Of carport. Ms.
O'Shea stated that she would like to do an architecturally
compatible carport addition at some point, but she needed a cover
now to protect her car. She offered to do landscaping around the
structure to lessen its visual impact.
George Fletcher, of 2915 Circlewood, addressed the Board in
opposition to the item. He stated that the structure was out of
character with the neighborhood. Mr. Fletcher stated that there
was no opposition to a modest carport which was architecturally
designed to be compatible with the house. He stated that he felt
the carport would reduce the value of neighboring properties.
Mr. Fletcher concluded by stating that the metal carport was "out
of line and out of place. -
Kirby Rowland asked if moving the structure closer to the house
would make it more acceptable. Mr. Fletcher responded that it
would not.
In response to a question from willie Lee Brooks, Mr. Fletcher
stated that he felt the carport would cause the lowering of
property values in the area. Mr. Fletcher acknowledged that he
had no basis for that assessment.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
the conditions noted in the staff recommendation. The motion
failed by a vote of I ayes, 5 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position and
1 abstaining (Alderfer).
3
October 28, 1996
No. * 4
File No.-:
Owner:
Address:
Descril)tiOn:
Zoned:
variance Reguested:
justification:
Present Use of Prnper y:
Prp
posed Use of Pro e!rty:
Staff Report:
A. Public works Comments:
Z-6210
James Self
#29 Markham Place Circle
Lot 24, Block 4, Parkway Place
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a sunroom.
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
The sunroom, will cover an existing
deck and will greatly enhance the
appearance of the house and back
yard.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
Existing street is a 27 foot asphalt street curb and gutter
with no sidewalk. Property owners are responsible for
maintaining curb, gutter and driveway aprons within the
public right-of-way. Repair any damaged curb and gutter or
driveway apron with construction, staff has no objections to
the addition to the rear of this lot.
B. Staff Analysis:
The owner of the residence located at 29 Markham Place
Circle proposes to construct a glass and aluminum sunroom
addition onto the rear of the house. The sunroom will be
built on an existing 10 foot by 16 foot deck. The existing
deck has a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The ordinance
requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet in the R-2 district.
The lot is relatively shallow, being only 102 feet deep.
The house is built with the required minimum front and rear
yard setbacks of 25 feet. The existing deck has been in
October 28, 1996
Item No.: 4 (Con
place for some years and does not appear to have created any
problems.
The visual impact of the reduced rear yard setback is
lessened by a "wet weather- creek, dense shrubbery and a
privacy fence located on the rear property line. The
property adjacent to the rear is occupied by a single family
residence which appears to have a 25 foot setback from the
common property line.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports
the requested setback variance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to compliance with Public Works Comments.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 28, 1996)
Scott Girner was present representing the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval, with conditions.
Mr. Girner offered no additional comments.
A motion was made to approve the rear yard setback variance
subject to compliance with Public Works Comments. The motion was
approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and I open
position.
I
2