HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6578 Staff AnalysisOctober 26, 1998
Item No.: 5
File No.: Z-6578
Owner. Charlotte and Clay Cook
Address: 5525 S. Scenic Drive
Description: Lot 15 and part of Lot 16,
Grandview Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Racznested: Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to permit
construction of additions with
reduced setbacks and which crow
platted building lines.
Justification: A licant's Statement: When I
agreed to buy my new home, I was
given a survey showing a 20 foot
building line setback on the north
side, which allowed me to remodel
the home as I intended to make it
suit my needs. When I ordered a
new survey, it showed a 30 foot
building line setback, so I am
asking for a variance on the
northeast corner of the home. I am
enclosing a copy of the survey I
was given first, so that you will
understand my dilemma.
I am also asking for a variance on
the west side of the home, so that
I may build an enclosed double
garage, which I strongly feel I
need for my personal safety. It is
a corner lot with a large drop to
the front and north, so the west
side is the only available garage
site.
Present Use of Property:
Single
Family
Proposed Use of Pro
vert
Single
Family
October 26, 1998
Item No.• 5 Cont.
Staff Report•
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 5525 S. Scenic Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicant proposes to substantially remodel
the home including the construction of additions to both the
east and west ends of the house. The additions will
maintain the home's existing rear yard setback of 7 feet and
will be built across platted building .lines on both the
Scenic Drive and Taylor Street frontages. The Code requires
a rear yard setback of 25 feet for this lot, since a 25 foot
setback will not be provided on both street frontages of_
this corner lot. The addition on the east end will have a.
front yard setback of 23 feet. The Code requires a front
yard setback of 25 feet.
Staff believes the variance requests to be reasonable. The
lot is unusually shaped and the existing home now has a 7
foot setback from the south (rear) property line. Allowing
the additions to maintain that same setback should not
impact the adjacent property. Due to the slope of the
properties, the floor level of the house on the adjacent
property to the south is at the same level as the roof of
the home on this lot. The addition on the east end of the
house will have only a corner intrusion on the 30 foot
building line. The addition will have a front yard setback
of 23 feet from the front (Scenic Drive) property line and
will set back 35 feet from the street itself. A substantial
retaining wall is located between the street and the front
property line.
The applicant proposes to remove a single car, carport from
the west side of the house and replace it with a two -car
garage. The garage will maintain the existing 7 foot rear
yard and will be built across a platted 30 foot building
line on the Taylor Street side. The addition will have a
side yard setback of 16 feet, exceeding the 8 feet required
by the Ordinance. The addition will set back from the curb
of the street approximately 25 feet. Adequate sight -
distance should be provided for vehicles exiting the garage
and entering Taylor Street. Taylor Street dead -ends at
Scenic Drive which itself ends in a cul-de-sac several lots
east of this property. This is not a heavily traveled
intersection.
Should the Board approve the building line variances, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
E
October 26, 1998
Item No.: 5 (Cont.
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard, rear
yard and building line variances subject to a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 26, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to a one -lot replat. Staff presented a new site plan which had
been submitted by the applicant. The revision did not affect -the
variance requests or staff's recommendation. Staff informed the
Board that the Traffic Engineer had approved the revision, which
brought the addition closer to the intersection. The applicant
offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 open position.
3