HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6914 Staff AnalysisSeptember 25•, 2000
Item No.: 4
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Pro -nosed Use of PropertY:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6914
John and Maria Dermott
#1 Wildwood Road
Lot 231, Prospect Terrace
Addition No. 3
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at #1 Wildwood Road is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence with a full basement. The applicant proposes to
construct a 24 foot by 25 foot addition onto the front of
the house. The addition would create a new front entry and
would contain a large family room. It is the applicant's
contention that, due to the internal configuration of the
home, the addition must be placed onto the front of the
house. The addition will extend across a platted 20 foot
building line and will result in a front yard setback of
9.5 feet. The code requires a 25 foot front yard setback
in R-2. The addition will set back 16.5 feet from the curb
of Wildwood Road. The lot slopes down from the street so
September 25, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
that the house has the appearance of one story from the
front and two -stories from the rear.
Staff has concerns about the proposed variance. The
property has a platted 20 foot front building line, less
than the 25 foot front yard normally required in the R-2
district. Allowing this amount of structure to extend to a
point 9.5 feet from the front property line appears to be
out of character with the neighborhood. Wildwood has only a
40 foot right-of-way, 10 feet less than the Master Street
Plan requires. The proposed addition is to come to within
4.5 feet of the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Wildwood
is a through -street providing access to several other
streets in the neighborhood. An elementary school is
located directly northeast of this site. Wildwood no doubt
carries additional traffic due to its proximity to the
school. Cars exiting the applicant's driveway will be in
the public right-of-way before the drivers are able to
determine if traffic is in the street. The curve in the
street seems to compound this concern. It should be noted
that Public Works did not note any traffic concerns. The
property across Wildwood to the east contains a home that
fronts onto Centerwood and has a side yard relationship to
Wildwood.
It appears that there is room to place the addition on the
north side of the home, in an area that was the former
right-of-way for "O" Street. When the right-of-way was
abandoned in 1956, an easement was retained in the north 1�
of the former street for the Municipal Water Works. It has
not been confirmed with all of the utilities but it seems
that there are no easements in that portion of "0" Street
which is now included in the applicant's property.
It may be that reducing the depth of the proposed addition
or relocating it to the north side of the house does not
meet the applicant's needs or is not feasible due to the
internal configuration of the existing home. Staff does
feel obligated to mention those possibilities.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the application as
filed.
2
September 25, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 25, 2000)
The applicant, John Dermott, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of denial. Gary Langlais noted that only 4 board members were
present and offered the applicant an opportunity to defer. Mr.
Dermott chose to pursue the issue.
Mr. Dermott discussed the traffic pattern in the area and stated
that he felt his proposed addition would not impact traffic. He
stated that the traffic pattern around the nearby school utilized
one-way streets and not much school traffic came southbound on
Wildwood Road. He presented photographs showing approximations
of the addition and visibility of vehicles exiting his driveway.
Mr. Dermott stated that he did not feel that the addition would
create a sight -distance problem. He noted that Public Works did
not note any traffic concerns. Mr. Dermott stated that there was
no objection from any of his neighbors. Mr. Dermott then
discussed the interior lay -out of the house, which was originally
built with in-law quarters. He stated that it was not possible
to place the addition anywhere else and have good traffic flow
within the house. Mr. Dermott stated that, in addition to the
limitations created by the internal configuration of the house,
putting the addition on the north side would not be aesthetically
pleasing.
Gary Langlais noted that Wildwood Road was a narrow street in a
reduced right-of-way. He asked if there were ever traffic
problems in the street. Mr. Dermott responded that it sometimes
became congested for a short time at school drop-off time in the
mornings. Mr. Dermott stated that the proposed addition created
no more sight distance problem than the trees on the adjacent
lot.
Norm Floyd suggested putting the addition elsewhere. Mr. Dermott
reiterated his belief that putting the addition elsewhere would
disrupt the flow through the home.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Dermott
described the exterior of the addition as matching the existing
house, with windows on the north and east sides and a hip roof.
Gary Langlais noted the reduced right-of-way for Wildwood Road.
He asked if there was a possibility of the street being widened.
Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, responded that all improvements
were in place and Traffic Engineering did not object to the
proposed addition.
3
September 25, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Scott Richburg voiced his concern about the impact this proposed
addition might have on other properties in the area. He
commented that the addition would stick out like a "sore thumb"
and asked Mr. Dermott if he had considered consulting with an
architect to review other options. Mr. Dermott responded that he
had not contacted an architect.
Norm Floyd stated that he concurred with Mr. Richburg; that there
appeared to be other options and that this application proposed
too much building too close to the street.
Gary Langlais also voiced his concerns about the closeness of the
addition to the street.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted. The
motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent.
4