HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6871 Staff AnalysisJune 26, 2000
Item No.: 12
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Reauested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6871
Dr. and Mrs. Ray Parker
#9 Longfellow Lane
Lot 5, Beverly Place Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. Install roof gutter to prevent stormwater runoff on
adjacent property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at #9 Longfellow Lane is occupied by
a two-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The
applicants propose to expand the house by constructing a
one-story addition along the full length of its east side.
The addition is proposed to have a side yard setback of
1.51. The Code requires a side yard setback of 8 feet for
this lot. The roof of the addition will slope toward the
side property line. The addition will have an eave/overhang
not to exceed 1 feet and will have guttering along the edge.
The applicant states the variance is requested in order to
expand the home in such a way as to require the least amount
of modification to the existing dwelling. He further states
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
that the intended use is such that the proposed expansion
needs to occur in this area of the lot.
Staff has concerns about the proposed variance. The Code
requires a side yard setback of 8 feet. The applicant is
requesting a substantial variance to allow a side yard of
1.5 feet. With the overhang and guttering, the structure
could be built to within 1-2 inches of the property line.
The house is 53.8' deep and the requested variance is for
the full depth of the house creating a substantial visual
impact on the adjacent property. The requested 1.5' side
yard setback appears to be out of character with the
neighborhood. Most homes in the immediate vicinity have
side yard setbacks meeting or exceeding ordinance
requirements. In staff's opinion, the applicant is
overbuilding on the east side of his property. A side yard
setback of 5 feet would appear to be more reasonable.
The owner of the property adjacent to the east has submitted
a letter of support in which he notes that there will be
approximately 17 feet between the two homes.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
Frank Riggins, Ray Parker and Kelley Parker were present
representing the application. There were no objectors present.
A letter of support had been submitted by Dan Robinson, owner of
the abutting property at #7 Longfellow Lane. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of denial.
Frank Riggins addressed the Board. He stated that there was a
precedent for reduced setbacks in the neighborhood. Mr. Riggins
stated that the overriding issue is what effect the proposal
would have on the neighborhood. He stated that he felt there
would be no effect and, in fact, the proposal was supported by
the abutting property owner.
Ray Parker addressed the Board and presented photographs of his
property and his neighbor's home. He stated that the home was
built in 1936 and is smaller than other homes in the area, about
3,000 square feet. Mr. Parker stated that due to the design of
the home and the way it was situated on the lot, there was
2
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
limited area to add onto the house. He stated that the one story
addition would have no windows on the east side. Mr. Parker
commented on the amount of separation between his home and his
neighbors. He stated that he had spoken with all of his
neighbors and they all supported his plan.
Norm Floyd expressed his concerns about a reduced setback for
this,amount of principal structure.
Frank Riggins repeated that he did not feel the proposal was out
of character with development in the area.
A motion was made to approve to application as submitted. The
motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3