Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6774-A Staff AnalysisMarch 31, 2003 I tWITW[em.01 File No.: Z -6774-A Owner: William and Peyton Woodyard Address: 5513 S. Grandview Road Description: Lot 46, Grandview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport/porch addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks, and which crosses a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5513 S. Grandview Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. A concrete driveway at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes from the front building line downward to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a porch and carport structure on front of the house. The carport structure will extend 25 feet out from the house, across a 30 foot platted building line, and be set back five (5) feet from the front property line. The structure will have a four (4) foot setback from the side (north) property line. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the structure will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont. that the addition will have a flat or slightly angled roofline. The applicant states that the porch/carport addition is needed to provide covered access and parking for his family. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, and Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Additionally, Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachment over a platted building line be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested five (5) foot front yard setback will be out of character and not compatible with the other residential properties in this area, even though the applicant is proposing to leave the structure unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. As a result of an inspection of the area, staff observed no other single family properties in this immediate area which had intrusions into the front yard setback as proposed by the applicant. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed addition. 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 denial of the variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Bill and Peyton Woodyard were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff briefly described the requested variances associated with the proposed carport/porch structure, with a recommendation of denial. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with photos of the property with the proposed carport/porch addition noted on them. He noted that some of the notices to property owners within 200 feet of the site were late. Staff noted that the persons notified late indicated that they had no problem with the late notification. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the late notification. K March 31, 2003 .: B (Cont. Mr. Woodyard described the proposed carport/porch structure and explained the reasons for requesting the variances. He explained the photos submitted to the Board. He discussed the setback of the proposed structure from the front property line and the street. He also described the proposed construction of the structure. He noted that the structure would have a low profile. He presented a petition of support from the surrounding property owners. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a shorter structure which covered only a portion of the vehicles would work. Mr. Woodyard indicated that it might be a possibility. The issue was briefly discussed. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that the carport/porch addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that it would decrease the value of her property. She also noted that the structure would cut off her view and make an existing drainage problem between the two houses worse. She noted that she has lived on the property for 40 years. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support a shorter addition which had the appearance of a porch. She indicated that she was opposed to any addition on this corner of the house. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Woodyard if he had looked at putting the carport/porch addition on the southwest corner of the house. Mr. Woodyard noted that a carport structure at the southwest corner of the house would eliminate all of the trees in the front yard (4 large trees). Peyton Woodyard noted that the carport addition at the northwest corner of the house allowed the easiest access to the house. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked about an apparent easement along the south property line. Staff noted that there appeared to be some sort of an easement along the south property line which served the property further to the east. The issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis noted that he did not support the requested variances, as the proposed structure is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Woodyard asked if a carport which extended 20 feet from the front of the house would be acceptable. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he would like to see how the carport structure would work into the existing house. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if an architect had done plans for the carport/porch addition. Mr. Woodyard stated that the plans were not yet ready. 3 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont. Mr. Francis noted that he also had a problem with a shorter carport structure. Other alternatives to the proposed carport/porch structure were discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support any type of addition to the front of the house. She noted that a circular drive would be a possibility. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he would support a deferral and explained. The issue of deferral was discussed. Mr. Woodyard stated that he would like to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the November 25, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) Bill Woodyard was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that Mr. Woodyard had three (3) alternate plans to present to the Board. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with three (3) alternate designs for the carport structure. He discussed 4 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont. the alternate plans with the Board. The alternate plans presented were as follows: ■ Plan 1 — locate carport structure (addition) to the south end of the residential structure with a front porch addition. Addition would result in a 20 -foot front setback and a 1 -foot side setback. Plan 2 — locate carport addition at the center of the residential structure, utilizing the existing driveway. Addition would result in a 6 to 10 foot front setback. Plan 3 — leave carport addition with porch at original location (northwest corner of residential structure), but shorten it in depth. Addition would result in an 11 -foot front setback. Mr. Woodyard stated that there were other single family structures in the neighborhood which encroached into required front setbacks, and explained. He noted that he preferred Plan 3. Fred Gray asked about the drainage along the south property line, specifically about the two (2) existing drainage structures. Mr. Woodyard explained the drainage situation along this property line. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, asked Mr. Woodyard if he was amending his application to be Plan 3. Mr. Woodyard stated that he was. Fred Gray asked about the orientation of the house immediately to the south with the street. Mr. Woodyard explained that the house was at an angle and not parallel with the side property lines. Fred Gray asked Mr. Woodyard and if he had spoken with a landscape architect about removal of the large oak trees in the front yard. Mr. Woodyard stated that he had and explained. There was a brief discussion regarding the possibility preserving the trees. Andrew Francis asked about the setbacks for Plan 1. Mr. Woodyard explained that the front yard setback would be 20 feet and that the side yard setback would be 1 foot. Mr. Francis noted support for Plan 1. Fred Gray also expressed support for Plan 1. He stated that Plan 3 was too tight with relation to the property to the north. There was general discussion related to the drainage issues associated with Plan 1. There was additional discussion related to the setbacks with Plan 1. 5 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont. Mr. Woodyard stated that there was another plan which he had considered (Plan 4), and explained it as follows: ■ Plan 4 — A porch addition extending 11 feet out from the northwest corner of the residential structure, running along the front of the house to the south end of the front gable. Addition would result in a 20 foot front setback and a 7.4 foot side setback (same as existing house). This plan was briefly discussed. Mr. Woodyard amended his application to Plan 4. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that any addition to the front of the house near the northwest corner of the structure would decrease her view. She stated that the addition was not compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that it would decrease her property value. She also expressed safety concerns. Fred Gray asked Mrs. Sipes what rooms were on the south side of her house. She noted that the master bedroom, bath and living room were along the south wall. Andrew Francis asked Mrs. Sipes about Plan 1. Mrs. Sipes stated that she was OK with Plan 1. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with any addition along the north property line. Chairman Ruck asked about staff's recommendation on Plan 4. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, noted that staff supported Plan 4 with the following conditions: 1. A replat must be completed. 2. The porch structure must be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. There was a motion to approve the amended application (Plan 4) as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays. The amended application was approved. A