HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6691 Staff AnalysisJuly 26, 1999
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Descriptio
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Proper :
Proposed Use of Proper :
Staff Re ort:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6691
Rance and Martha Perkins
2616 Arkansas Valley Drive
Lot 71 Block 35, Pleasant Valley
R-2
Variances are requested from the
accessory building area regulations
of Section 36-156 to allow
construction of an accessory
building with reduced front and
side yard setbacks.
The building is to replace one
which was torn down and will be
located in the same place as the
previous building.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 2616 Arkansas Valley Drive
is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The owner of the property proposes to construct
a 9' X 20' storage building on the site, between the house
and the south property line. The building will have a front
yard setback of 55 feet and a side yard setback of 0 feet.
The Code requires front and side yard setbacks of 60 feet
and 3 feet respectively for accessory structures in the
residential districts.
July 26, 1999
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
The applicant has stated that the proposed structure is to
replace an older building that was torn down. He states
that the new structure needs to be built where proposed to
control and correct a water runoff problem. The house on
the property adjacent to the south is 8 to 10 feet off of
the side property line. A 6 foot tall, wood privacy fence
is located on the property line.
Staff believes the front yard setback variance is minor and
should have no impact on adjacent properties. The
difference between the 55 feet proposed by the applicant and
the 60 feet required by the Code is negligible and should
not be that noticeable to the naked eye. The structure is
located behind a privacy fence, reducing its visibility from
the street.
Staff is not supportive of the requested 0 foot side yard
setback. Staff has consistently raised concerns whenever
such a reduced setback is proposed adjacent to -another
property. Allowing such a setback could produce water
runoff problems for the neighboring property. A 0 foot
setback does not provide adequate room for construction and
maintenance of the structure without encroaching onto the
adjacent property. Staff believes it is more appropriate to
require a minimum side yard setback of 18 to 24 inches, with
guttering on the structure to prevent water runoff. An 18
to 24 inch setback provides for the needed room between the
structure and the property line. Much less than that could
result in the eave/overhang and guttering extending over the
property line.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the setback variance request as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 26, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. A
statement of support from Elmer Bierman of 2608 Arkansas Valley
Drive, the applicant's next door neighbor, had been received by
staff and forwarded to the Board.
FA
July 26, 1999
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
The applicant addressed the Board and stated that he was
replacing a deteriorated metal accessory building with a new,
wood structure. Mr. Perkins stated that he had discussed the
proposal with his neighbors and none of them were in objection.
He made note of the statement from the neighbor who would be most
affected by the setback variance. In response to a question
from Chairman Langlais, Mr. Perkins stated that he could move
the building to a point 10-12 inches from the property line.
Mr. Perkins stated that having a setback of 10-12 inches would
create an area where leaves and debris would gather that would
be difficult to keep clear.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Perkins stated that
a drainage structure was located between the proposed accessory
building and the house to help divert water around the house.
Mr. Perkins stated that the structure would have a sloped,
shingle roof and would have guttering to prevent water run-off
onto the neighbors property. He stated that he had worked
closely with his neighbor to address drainage issues.
There was further discussion of the possibility of narrowing the
proposed building to provide a greater side yard setback.
The Board and the applicant then discussed how to measure the
setback, whether from the property line or from the fence, which
is assumed to be inside the property line. There was discussion
about whether to measure the setback from the vertical wall of
the building or from the outside edge of the guttering.
A motion was made to approve the setback variance as requested
with the understanding that the guttering was not to extend past
the property line. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes,
1 noe and 0 absent.
M