HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6738 Staff AnalysisOctober 25, 1999
Item No.: 3
File No.: Z-6738
Owner: Laura Fanning
Address: 8802 Mayflower Road
Description: Lot 10, Block 3, Pennbrook
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 extension with a
reduced front yard setback and
which is built across a platted
building line. -
Justification: AX2plicant's Statement: In regards
to my request for a residential
zoning variance, I propose to
expand the existing carport by
seven feet in length. It is now
even with the front of the house
and will come seven feet toward the
front of the property.
The carport is currently not long
enough to cover our cars and the
additional length will achieve
this. There is 39 feet from the
back of the curb to the front of
the house. Since the proposed
addition is only a roof with 2
poles, it will not encroach on the
surroundings visually or in any
other way.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Propert : Single Family
October 25, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Relocate fence to improve sight distance at the
intersection of Barrow and Mayflower (per Sec. 32-8).
2. Carport must stay unenclosed to provide adequate sight
distance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned lot located at 8802 Mayflower Road contains a
one story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The
house has a single -car carport on the east side. This
existing carport was built many years ago across a platted
25 foot building line on the Barrow Road perimeter. The
carport is unenclosed, consisting only of support poles and
the roof. The applicant wishes to add to the front and rear
of the carport, making it deep enough to park two vehicles
under, one behind the other. The carport extensions will
also be located beyond the platted building line. The
addition to the front of the carport will result in a front
yard setback of 20 feet. The code requires a front yard
setback of 25 feet for this lot. All other required zoning
setbacks will be exceeded.
Staff believes the variance requests to be reasonable. The
relatively minor front yard setback variance should have no
effect on adjacent properties or on traffic in the street.
The carport extension will be built over the existing paved
driveway and will have a setback of 30 feet from the curb of
Mayflower Road. The carport (both existing and including
the proposed extensions) has a side yard setback of 15 feet
on the Barrow Road side.
There is a sight distance issue which must be addressed.
Barrow Road curves just north of this site and sight
distance is somewhat impeded for traffic entering Barrow
Road from Mayflower Road. The impediment is created by the
applicant's 6 foot tall privacy fence. The problem can
easily be resolved by a slight relocation of the fence;
pulling it closer to the house for part of its length along
Barrow Road. If this is accomplished and the carport
remains unenclosed, sight distance will not be an issue.
K
October 25, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
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. 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 building line and
front yard setback variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board for the existing carport
and the proposed carport extensions.
2. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all sides
other than at the point it adjoins the house.
3. Compliance with Public Works Comment to relocate the
fence to improve sight distance at the intersection of
Barrow and Mayflower.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 25, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the " Staff
Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff, including all conditions. The vote was
5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3