HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6330-A Staff AnalysisFebruary 23, 1998'
Item No.: 4
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Des .-ri tion
Zoned:
Variance Re ested:
Justification:
Present Use of Pro ert :
Proposed Use of Pro ert :
Staff ReT)ort
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -6330-A
Claudia and Gary Barone
1918 N. Monroe Street
North 20 feet of Lot 61 and south
30 feet of Lot 62, Shadowlawn
Addition
R-2
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.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family residential
Single Family residential
Repair any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
B. Staff Anal sis:.
The applicants propose to construct a carport addition onto
the residence located on the R-2 zoned lot at 1918 N. Monroe
Street. The proposed carport will have a side yard setback
of 3 feet and will cross a platted 30 foot building line.
The Ordinance requires a 5 foot side yard setback for this
lot. The carport will be built to match the design and
architecture of the house and will be built over the
existing driveway.
On June 30, 1997, the Board denied a variance for a similar
carport proposed to have a side yard setback of 1.3 feet.
There was opposition from Ralph Walsh, whose mother owned
the adjacent property at 1914 N. Monroe. Mr. Walsh stated
that the reduced setback of 1.3 feet would bring the carport
too close to his mother's house which has a side yard
setback of 5.2 feet.
February 23, 1998 -
No. :
998
No._ 4 (Cont
The applicant has now submitted a revised request to build a
carport with a setback of 3 feet. This would put the
carport over the concrete driveway. The support posts would
rest on the driveway and the carport would have a minimal
overhang, enough to allow for placement of guttering. Staff
believes this is a reasonable proposal and supports the
requested side yard setback variance with the overhang
limited to 6 inches.
The applicant desires to tie the roof of the carport in to
the roof of the existing front porch. Due to the angle of
the house in relationship to the front property line, the
carport addition will encroach on the building line by only
2 feet at one corner. The front yard setback will be 28
feet. This minor encroachment should have no impact on
adjacent properties.
The carport will be open and unenclosed which will help to
mitigate the impact of the reduced side yard setback.
Staff believes the applicant has submitted reasonable
justification to support the requested variances. If the
building line variance is approved, the applicant will have
to do a one lot replat to reflect the change as 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 and
side yard variances subject to the following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all
sides other than at the point it adjoins the house.
3. The overhang on the side of the carport is to be limited
to no more than 6 inches.
4. Guttering is to be installed on the carport.
5. Compliance with Public Works Comment
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 23, 1998)
The applicants were present. There was one objector present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions noted above.
Gary Barone addressed the Board and stated that he agreed with
staff's recommendation. He noted the differences between this
proposal and the one previously denied by the Board. He
presented drawings showing the proposed addition.
K
February 23, 1998-
Item
998
Item No.: 4 ( Cont.)
Scott Farrel, the project architect, also described the proposed
carport.
Pat Walsh, whose mother owns the adjacent property, addressed the
Board. He read from a prepared statement in which he outlined
several points of concern. Mr. Walsh presented photographs of
the properties. He stated that he objected to any variance.
Mr. Barone asked the Board if there were any objections which he
needed to address.
Gary Langlais stated that the proposed side yard setback is
"pretty much" as previously suggested by the Board. He stated
that the front building line encroachment was insignificant in
his opinion.
Mr. Barone presented photographs of other homes in the area with
similar carports. He also had photographs showing what the
carport would look like when viewed from Mrs. Walsh's property.
He stated that a large tree would have to be cut down in order to
move the proposed carport into the rear yard.
Mr. Walsh restated his objection to the variance.
A motion was made to approve the variances subject to compliance
with those conditions recommended by staff. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open
positions.
3