HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7029 Staff AnalysisMay 21, 2001
Item No.: 4
r;ia Nn_e Z-7029
Owner: Greg Lathrop
Address: #5 Wildwood Road
Description: Plot 115, Prospect Terrace No. 2
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254,
the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 and the fence height
provisions of Section 36-516.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family residence
Pro osed Use of Property: Single Family residence
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Proposed concrete wall on east side, including footing,
should be entirely located on the private property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at #5 Wildwood Road is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicant proposes to remodel the home,
including constructing several additions onto the house.
The larger addition, onto the north side of the house, will
entrude slightly across the front platted, 15 foot building
line and the 8 foot side yard setback. A rear porch
addition will also entrude slightly across the side yard
setback. The large addition will have front and side yard
setbacks of 12 feet and 7.5 feet respectively. The porch
will have a side yard setback of 4 feet. An existing,
combination retaining wall/fence is located along the east
property line. This structure now averages 819" in height
May 21, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
as measured from grade on the applicant's side. The
applicant proposes to raise the height of the retaining
wall/fence to a height of 9' - 1016" above grade. The
maximum height above grade on the neighbor's property is to
be 6 feet. The maximum height of such wall/fence structures
is to be 6 feet above grade (on either side).
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The lot is
unusually shaped. It has a front yard, 2 side yards and no
rear yard as defined by the Code. The setback variances for
the proposed additions are minor in nature and involve only
a corner intrusion in each instance. The property adjacent
to the east is at a higher elevation and should not be
impacted by the variance requested for the porch addition.
This change in elevation caused the constructed of the
retaining wall and fence many years ago. Staff's interest
in reviewing the proposed increase in height is that the
neighbor not be negatively affected by a fence or wall
exceeding ordinance maximums. In this case, although the
height of the combination retaining wall/fence would be 9' -
10'6" above grade on the applicant's property, it would not
exceed the Ordinance maximum of 6' above grade when viewed
from the adjacent property.
If the Board approves the building line variance for the
corner intrusion of the large addition, 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.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, building
line and fence height variances subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. All portions of the proposed retaining wall/fence
structure, including footings, are to be located on the
applicant's property
3. The fence portion of the
is to be constructed in
the finished side facing
2
retaining wall/fence structure
"good neighbor" fashion, with
outward.
May 21, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
4. The retaining wall/fence is not to extend past the
building line on the Centerwood Road side of the
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditidns outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3