HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6701 Staff AnalysisAugust 30, 1999
Item No.: A
File No_: Z-6701
Owner: Arlene Bitely
Address: 3701 Foster Street
Description: Lot 12, Block 3, West Heights
Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the area regulations of
Section 36-254 to permit a carport
addition built across a platted
building line and with a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: The house never had a carport. The
owner desired to have covered
parking and constructed the carport
addition without knowledge that it
violated city code.
Present Use of Proper : Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Driveway needs to be paved to eliminate gravel dragging onto
public streets.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 3701 Foster Street is
occupied by a one-story brick and frame, single-family
residence. The owner has recently begun construction of an
enclosed carport addition onto the front of the house. The
addition is built across a platted 30 foot building line and
August 30, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.)
has a front yard setback of 15.75 feet. The Code requires a
front yard setback of 25 feet for this lot.
Staff does have concerns about the addition as it has been
built. Although the application indicates the addition is
for a carport, the sides have been enclosed, making the
addition different than an "unenclosed carport." The visual
impact of a solid, enclosed addition extending into the
front yard is substantially different than that of an open,
unenclosed carport. The addition does have a visual impact
and does not appear to be compatible with the other
residential properties on the street. The second issue of
concern is that of the construction itself. No plans were
submitted for review, no permits obtained and no inspections
performed. Although building construction is not itself an
issue of concern for the Board, staff feels that there may
be safety issues at stake or at least quality of
construction issues.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line as approved by the Board. The
applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's Office to determine if the replat requires a
revised Bill of Assurance.
Staff could support the requested variances if the structure
was converted into an open, unenclosed carport, if all
required permits, inspections and building code approvals
were obtained, if a replat was completed and if the driveway
was paved to meet Public Works requirements.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variances as filed for the
addition as it has been constructed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 26, 1999)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the notices were incomplete and
there had been no recent contact with the applicant. A motion
was made to defer the item to the August 30, 1999 Board meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
2
August 30, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 30, 1999)
The applicant, Arlene Bitely, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Board that no further
proof of notice had been received. Ms. Bitely presented the
notice form and stated that she had obtained some additional
signatures. Dana Carney of the Planning Staff and Steve Giles of
the City Attorney's Office reviewed the notice form. They
determined that Ms. Bitely had, in fact, notified two additional
persons. Several other properties were listed "vacant" or
"refused to sign." The two additional signatures were obtained
one day prior to the hearing. Staff noted that, in one form or
another, most of the properties within 200 feet of the site were
accounted for. A motion was made to waive the Board's bylaws
and to accept the notices. The motion was approved by a vote of
4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Staff then presented the variance issue and a recommendation of
denial. It was noted that staff could support a variance for an
unenclosed carport if all required permits, inspections and
building code approvals were obtained, if a replat was completed
and if the driveway was paved to meet Public Works requirements.
Ms. Bitely addressed the Board in support of her variance
request. She stated that her son had started the project and she
thought he was handling all of the requirements. Ms. Bitely
stated that she had hired a carpenter to build the addition and
thought he had obtained the permits. She stated that she was
remodeling the whole house and would improve the condition of the
addition. Ms. Bitely stated that the remodeling was a slow
process, dependent upon the availability of money.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Bitely described
the addition as having enclosed sides but only a tarp across the
front. She stated that she would remove the sides, if the Board
would give her time.
There was a discussion among the Board members of giving Ms.
Bitely 60 days to remove the sides (making the structure an
unenclosed carport) and to bring the addition into compliance
with Building Codes.
A motion was made to approve the requested building line and
setback variances to allow an unenclosed carport and granting 60
days to obtain all required permits and inspections and to bring
3
August 30, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.)
the structure into compliance with the Board's action. The vote
was 3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. Approval of the building line
variance requires a one -lot replat.
4