Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6869 Staff AnalysisJune 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 File No.: Z-6869 Owner: Wayne Moore Construction Company Address: 5318 Centerwood Road Descriu_tion: East 20 feet of Lot 96 and all of Lot 97, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the accessory building setback and area coverage provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: 1. Proposed structure must be located minimum 25 feet from centerline of "0" Street to provide adequate room for future road widening, utilities, and sidewalk. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5318 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story, frame and stucco, single-family residence and a detached, two -car garage. The home is being remodeled and the applicant proposes to expand the front stoop. The addition will cross a platted 30 foot building line and will result in a front yard setback of 26 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant proposes to remodel the detached garage, salvaging as much of the structure as possible and expanding it. The existing garage has a 0' side yard setback and a 0' rear yard June 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont. setback. The expanded structure is proposes to maintain those same setbacks and will cover 335 of the required rear yard. The Code requires side and rear yard setbacks of 3 feet _for accessory structures and limits them to rear yard coverage of 30%. Staff is supportive of the building line variance proposed for the front stoop addition. The stoop will be uncovered and will have a front yard setback of 261, exceeding the 25' front yard required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only a portion of the stoop and the existing porch are across the building line. The house itself is behind the building line. 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. Staff does have concerns about the proposed remodeling and expansion of the garage, particularly about the 0' side yard setback. The property backs up to "0" Street which serves more like an alley, providing access to several similar garage structures along the street. The street is one-way, with traffic being limited to east -bound east of Tyler Street and west -bound west of Tyler Street. The proposed 0' setback on the rear is not out of character with other structures in the area. The structure has a setback of 15.8' from the edge of "0" Street. Allowing the reduced setback from 110" Street should not impact this lightly traveled, minor residential street. No portion of the eave/overhang should extend over the property line into the public right-of-way. 110" Street, at this point, does have 25' of right-of-way measured from the centerline. The minor area coverage variance is negligible and should have no impact on adjacent properties. As was previously mentioned, the existing 20.2' X 18.3' garage has a 0' side yard setback. The proposal is to expand the structure to 24' X 241. The applicant states that he will try to save as much of the nonconforming structure as possible. It may, however, be necessary to remove the entire structure. The code requires a side yard setback of 3 feet. There is an accessory structure on the adjacent property, directly across from this structure, with a side yard setback of 1±: Staff has consistently not supported 0' setback between abutting properties. That 2 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) position is strengthened by the presence of the structure on the adjacent property. The fire hazard of having structures located so close is an issue which must be considered. Allowing a 0' side yard implies that the eave/overhang could extend to or over the property line, creating a water run- off problem for the adjacent land owner. Staff understands the applicant's desire to save a tree by not moving the structure further west. The tree could be saved and a reasonable side yard provided if the structure were reduced in width from 24' to 211-221. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff's recommendation is broken into the following segments: 1. Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance to allow the stoop addition to the front of the house subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. (b) The stoop is to remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback and area coverage variances for the accessory building subject to no portion of the eave/overhang extending over the rear property line into the public right-of-way. 3. Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance for the accessory structure to allow a side yard of 0'. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant, Wayne Moore, was present. There were no objectors present. Ellen Yeary, owner of the abutting property on the east, was present in support. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Wayne Moore addressed the Board. He stated that Ms. Yeary was not only a neighbor in support of the item but was actually the architect on his remodeling project. He stated that the old, flat -roofed garage structure was beyond repair. Mr. Moore stated that he could not reduce the building to 21 feet in width as t3 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) suggested by staff and be able to get his two large vehicles in it. He stated that moving the structure further west would cause him to have to remove a tree. Mr. Moore described the building as being designed to match the architecture of the house, with the roof pitching to each side and gables on the front and rear. Norm Floyd commented that water would then run off onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Moore responded that it would. Ellen Yeary, of 5312 Centerwood, spoke in support of the item. She stated that she was happy with the reduced setback and would prefer that to seeing Mr. Moore remove a tree. William Ruck commented that the structure could have no overhang. Mr. Moore responded that there would be no overhang unless Ms. Yeary wanted guttering installed on the east side of the garage. Ms. Yeary stated that she would wait and see if she felt guttering would be needed. She suggested putting gravel in the area between the two structures and designing drainage so that water flows toward the street. Norm Floyd asked staff if the Board could attach additional conditions, beyond those suggested by staff. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the Board could attach any conditions it deems appropriate. Mr. Floyd suggested approving the 0 foot setback and requiring guttering to be installed on the east side of the structure. Mr. Carney explained that the setback is measured to the vertical wall of the structure and allowing a 0 foot setback while requiring guttering would require the applicant to build a structure that intrudes onto the abutting property. He suggested that such a situation would not be acceptable. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, concurred. She stated that the Board should not make a condition that requires the applicant to trespass on neighboring property. Fred Gray asked Mr. Moore if he could either reduce the structure or move it enough to provide a 1 foot side yard setback. Mr. Moore responded that the garage, as he proposed, would be located about 4 feet from the tree. He stated that moving the garage would result in the garage being 3 feet from the tree. Mr. Carney commented that building the garage to within 4 feet of the tree would likely kill the tree since the building would be located over the tree's critical root zone. 4 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont. Norm Floyd suggested as additional conditions that no portion of the structure extend over the property line, that guttering be installed on the structure and that there be no plumbing installed.in the structure. Gary Langlais asked Mr. Moore if he would be agreeable to a 23 foot wide garage or moving the structure to provide a 1 foot side yard., Mr. Moore responded that he needed a 24 foot wide garage but that he would move the structure, providing a 1 foot side yard setback. A motion was made to approve the requested building line variance subject to compliance with the conditions offered by staff. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the requested setback and area coverage variances (as amended to include a 1 foot side yard setback) subject to compliance with the conditions proposed by staff and the following three conditions proposed by Norm Floyd: 1. No portion of the structure is to extend over the property line. 2. Guttering is to be installed on the structure. 3. No plumbing is to be in the structure. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 5