HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6351 Staff AnalysisI f
July 28, 1997
7,. ro�V
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Re ested:
justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6351
Mr. and Mrs. E. G. Klugh
5319 Country Club
Lot 5, Block 19, Newton's Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-156
to permit construction of an
accessory building with a reduced
side yard setback.
Applicant's Statement: We are
replacing our single garage with a
double garage. The new garage will
be in the same location as the
existing structure.
This letter is to request a
variance in the code in order that
our new double garage will be
accessible. Due to the location of
the house, if the new structure is
moved over 3 feet, we would not
have access to the garage.
We respectfully request your
approval.
Single Family
Single Family
The applicants propose to remove the existing 18 foot by 18
foot detached garage from the R-2 zoned property at 5319
Country Club and replace it with a new 22 foot by 33 foot
two -car garage and storage room. The existing structure now
t ,
July 28, 1997
Item No.
has a side yard setback of 0.4 - 0.8 feet on the east side.
The applicants propose to maintain that same setback for the
new structure. The ordinance requires accessory structures
to maintain a minimum side yard setback of 3 feet.
The applicant's property has a shared driveway arrangement
with the property to the east. The applicants state that
moving the new structure 3 feet from the property line
would make it difficult to access the structure.
Although staff is considerate of the applicant's concerns
about access, we feel there are other issues which suggest
that it is reasonable to require that the proposed new
structure be moved further away from the side property line.
Permitting a 0 foot side yard setback allows no provisions
for eave overhang or guttering to prevent water run-off onto
the adjacent property. There is an accessory building on
the property directly adjacent to this proposed structure
which has a side yard setback of only 2.5 feet. Allowing a
0 foot setback would create a situation where there is only
2.5 feet between structures on these lots. Staff feels that
this is an unsafe and undesirable situation, especially in
light of potential fire danger. If the applicant feels that
moving the structure to the west would make the turning
movement into the garage too tight around the house, staff
suggests that the structure be moved further to the rear.
In any case, staff feels that a minimum side yard setback of
18 inches in not unreasonable. When eaves and gutters are
added, this still brings the structure close to the property
line.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0 foot side yard
setback. Staff believes a minimum setback of 18 inches
should be required.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 28, 1997)
The Chairman asked that staff present the item. Richard Wood, of
the Staff, offered a brief commentary of the staff's position
relative to this requested variance and stated that the staff's
recommendation was denial with the requested zero foot side yard.
Wood stated that staff recommended a minimum of 18 inches be
maintained on that side of the property.
At the conclusion of Wood's remarks, the Chairman asked if there
was someone to represent the application. Sherri Klugh was
present representing the application. She offered comments in
support of her requested variance stating the hardship concerning
access to the facility once constructed and that the increased
side yard would penalize access turning movement.
E
July 28, 1997
No.: 9 (Cont.
Mr. Robert Beal, an adjacent property owner, on the east side of
the property was in attendance. Mr. Beal spoke in favor of the
application offering several comments and justifying constructing
the new facility and the position that was noted on the
applicant's drawing. A lengthy discussion then followed
involving both the staff, the applicant and the Board in
determining the manner in which the zero lot line building could
be located, the manner in which water could be shed from the roof
without encroaching on the neighboring property. Discussion
centered around providing guttering on the east side of the
structure. Mr. Beal again approached the lectern and indicated
that the building at zero setback with the guttering presented no
problem for his property. He indicated a preference for the
building being located with a front alignment on his building.
He stated there was approximately 2 1/2 feet between the
buildings at this time.
A question was posed by a Board member as to the fire safety
issue. Richard Wood, of the Staff, pointed out that in building
location the six 6 foot separation between structures that is 3
feet for each accessory building, is a fire separation device
much like the requirement of six feet between an accessory and a
principal structure. The conversation continued involving a
question as to whether the proposed building could be moved to
the rear of the lot with enough dimension to provide proper
turning movements. Again the issues came back to the preference
of the neighbor and the applicant. At the conclusion of this
discussion, the Chairman asked if there was commentary or a
motion from the Board. At this point, a motion was made to
approve the application as submitted subject to no overhang on
the adjacent property line of the property owned by Mr. Beal. A
vote on the motion produced 8 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3