HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6343 Staff AnalysisJuly 28, 1997
Item No.: 5
File No.
Owner:
Address -
Description•
Zoned•
variance Requested:
Z-6343
Mary Katherine Wilson
313 N. Monroe
Lot 15, Block 4, Elmhurst Addition
R-3
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-156
to permit a carport with a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: The carport
was built in its current front -yard
location because I need all-weather
access between my car and my front
door by the shortest, least
strenuous and safest route. The
carport contractor assured me, and
continues to assure me, that a city
permit was not needed since the
cost was below $1,000. There is no
room to place it alongside the
house unless the city covers over
the open ditch along the south
side, as was done for the property
that backs up to mine on the east
side.
Unassisted, I need to get in and
out of my car in bad weather, open
and close an umbrella in the dry,
and get necessities like groceries
out of the trunk in bad weather.
The carport keeps my car driveable
by preventing snow, ice, and dust
buildup on my car windows. Without
the carport it would be almost
impossible for me to use my car in
all but very good weather. The
front carport location is the only
workable solution that allows me to
keep my car clean and driveable and
to return home and get safely into
and out of my house.
T
July 28, 1997
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
I have owned my home at 313 North
Monroe for over fifty years. I
take pride in maintaining its
appearance and condition to be
among the very best in the
neighborhood. I submit an attached
letter from Jon Goss, certified
residential appraiser, regarding
this matter. It has been very
distressing to learn that my
carport placement on my lot does
not meet the LETTER of the code.
My friends and neighbors share my
position that the appearance of the
carport, and of my property as a
whole, more than meets the SPIRIT
of the code toward protecting
property values and it also meets
the unwritten expectations for a
Hillcrest property owner.
I sincerely hope and trust that
this appeal will be favorably
resolved by the Board of
Adjustment.
Present Use of Propert : Single Family
Proposed Use of Propert : Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B.- Staff Analysis:
This issue is before the Board as a result of action by the
Codes Enforcement Staff.
The applicant has placed an 11 foot by 19 foot, metal
carport structure on the R-3 zoned property located at 313
N. Monroe Street. The structure has a front yard setback of
3.5 - 4 feet. The Ordinance requires accessory buildings to
have a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable. The
carport was placed over the existing driveway. It is open
and unenclosed. The structure is screened somewhat by heavy
vegetation in the form of shrubs and trees on the north and
south sides. The structure has a setback of 10± feet from
the curb of the street. In similar issues, staff is
2
July 28, 1'997
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
concerned about sight distance when backing out of a
structure into the street. The sight distance is no
different with this unenclosed carport due to the presence
of the hedge row on the south.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback variance subject to the carport structure being open
and unenclosed on all sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 28, 1997)
The Chairman asked Richard wood, of the Staff, to present the
item and the Staff Recommendation. Wood indicated this is a
variance based upon an enforcement issue to retain a carport with
a reduced front yard. Wood indicated that the staff recommends
approval of the requested setback with the usual conditions
dealing with enclosure.
The staff noted there were a number of letters in the file in
support of the application and at least a couple of phone calls
indicating one person opposed the application. The Chairman then
asked Mrs. Wilson to come forward and address the issue.
Mrs. Wilson offered a brief statement as to the need for
retaining this carport which is located in her front yard. At
the conclusion of her remarks, the Chairman asked if there were
those present in objection. There were none noted.
After a brief discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion on the
application. A motion was made to approve the application
subject to the staff recommendation. The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3