HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6774 Staff AnalysisNovember 29, 1999
Item No.: 3
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Propert :
Proposed Use of Pr❑ ert :
Z-6774
Norman Raney
5513 S. Grandview
Lot 46, Grandview Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 to permit a walkway addition
with a reduced side yard setback.
Applicant's Statement: The home
currently has two separate
entrances on the front. When
originally built only one front
entrance serviced the home. An
additional front entrance was added
when the carport was enclosed in
1983. Over the past 17 years
changes in the floor plan have made
the newer entrance on the front of
the house where the carport once
occupied functionally obsolete.
The variance requested would allow
for the addition of a treated
wooden walkway 14 feet long and 3
feet 9 inches wide starting at the
northwest corner and extending
across the north side 14 feet to
allow access to the new side
entrance of the house. The walkway
would be with the main level of the
home and on the same plane as the
main level and give the much needed
service entrance.
Single Family
Single Family
November 29, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned lot located at 5513 S. Grandview is occupied
by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence.
Due to the slope of the property, the house is one-story, at
the street and two stories at the rear. In 1983, the
carport was enclosed and an additional front entrance was
placed on the front of the enclosure. Over the past 17
years, changes in the floor plan have rendered this
additional front entrance obsolete. The applicant proposes
to relocate this entrance to the north side of the
residence. Due to the slope of the property, it will be
necessary to construct a raised walkway to provide access
from the driveway to the new side entrance. The applicant
proposes to construct a 3.9' X 141, treated wood walkway.
The walkway will result in a side yard setback of 3.41.
Section 36-254 of the code requires a side yard setback of
8 feet for this site.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable.
Relocating the additional entrance from the front to the
side will result in a more aesthetically pleasing appearance
from the street. The proposed walkway will be uncovered and
unenclosed. Without the raised walkway, there is no way to
provide access to an entrance on the side of the house. The
residence on the property adjacent to the north has a side
yard setback of 8'±, providing adequate separation between
structures. Staff does not believe that allowing the
proposed walkway will negatively impact properties in the
area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance for the proposed raised walkway subject to the
walkway remaining uncovered and unenclosed other than for
any railing that may be required.
2
November 29, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 29, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were two objectors present.
Letters of opposition from the two objectors had been received by
staff and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to the walkway remaining
uncovered and unenclosed other than for any required railing.
The applicant, 'Todd Raney, addressed the Board in support of his
variance request. Mr. Raney stated that it was architecturally
desirable to move the second entrance around to the side of the
house to provide an entrance through the family room. He
explained that the slope of the property required construction of
a raised walkway to reach the proposed new doorway. In response
to a question, Mr. Raney stated that the walkway would be
approximately 6 feet above grade at the doorway. Mr. Raney
stated that most traffic would use the main front entrance and
only his family would use the new side entrance.
Mrs. W. B. Sipes, of 5501 S. Grandview, spoke in opposition to
the requested variance. She stated that the walkway would be too
close to the property line and was out of character with the
neighborhood. Mrs. Sipes noted that she spent most of her time
in the end of her house closest to the proposed walkway.
Mrs. Inez Farish, of 5437 S. Grandview, also spoke against the
item. She stated that the house was too small for the
neighborhood and that other homes in the area had only one front
entrance and no side entrance.
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Raney described the existing
walkway that "stair -stepped" "down the slope of the property to
the lower level of the house. Mr. Raney stated that the proposed
new walkway would be built over a portion of the existing
walkway.
In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Raney stated
that he would be willing to install an opaque screen on the edge
of the walkway nearest Mrs. Sipes property. Mrs. Sipes responded
that she wanted neither a screen nor the walkway.
A motion was made to approve the setback variance subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion
3
November 29, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
was seconded. After a brief discussion, the second was
withdrawn. The motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was then made to approve the setback variance subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff and the
additional condition that a 6 foot tall opaque screen be
installed on the entire length of the north side of the walkway,
with no enclosure of the ends of the walkway and no cover over
the walkway. The motion was seconded.
Fred Gray commented that he would prefer to see the item deferred
so that the applicant and the neighbor could try to resolve their
differences.
The vote on the motion was 1 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. The item
was denied.
4