HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7467 Staff AnalysisAugust 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-7467
James Raczynski and Martha Phillips
18 Greathouse Bend Drive
Lot 23, Greathouse Bend Estates, Phase II
R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 and the height
provisions of Section 36-254, associated
with the construction of a new house.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant lot
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 18 Greathouse Bend Drive is currently vacant.
The property is in the process of being cleared, with site work being done
in preparation for the construction of a single family residence. The
property slopes downward from back to front (south to north).
The applicants propose to construct a new single family residence on the
property. The structure will have two (2) main levels, with a finished
basement level and an observation level (4th story). The building will have
an overall height of 42 feet, as measured from the finished floor of the
basement to the mean roof line of the observation level.
August 25, 2003
Item No.: 20 Cont.)
The proposed house will be located within the east half of the property,
with a detached garage structure within the west half. The garage is
connected to the principal structure by an unenclosed breezeway. The
garage structure is located approximately 53 feet back from the front
property line. The garage will be accessed by way of a private drive which
runs within the south portion of the property.
Section 36-254(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
building height of 35 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-156(a)(2)c.
requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures
on single family lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances
from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the new house
and accessory garage. The proposed buildings conform to all other
setback requirements.
Staff supports the variance requests. Staff views the requested variances
as very minor in nature. The topography of the lot and the fact that the
applicants wish to finish out the basement level of the structure, dictate
the way that the building height is calculated. If the basement were not
finished out and if the garage were connected to the house with an
enclosed structure, no variances would be needed for the proposed
development of the property. Staff feels that if the variances are
approved, they will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on
the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to a
building permit being obtained for the proposed construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTME
(AUGUST 25, 2003)
Chuck Fiser was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of approval. Chairman Ruck noted that the item was originally
on the Consent Agenda.
Chuck Fiser addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained
that the proposed height of the structure was based on the topography of the
property.
Barry McDaniel addressed the Board in opposition. He stated that he had no
problem with the setback variance for the garage, but was only opposed to the
proposed height of the residence. He expressed concerns that the proposed
K
August 25, 2003
Item No.: 20 Cont.
height of the house would block his view of the river when he constructed his
house. He noted that the increase in height was substantial.
There was a brief discussion related to the issue of a building permit for the
house.
Chairman Ruck asked what the impact would be if the top floor of the
observation tower were removed. Mr. Fiser noted that he was trying to maximize
the view. He noted that the building permit was issued for the house, with the
understanding that the basement level would not be finished -out if the height
variance were not approved. This issue was briefly discussed.
Vice -Chairman asked what stage the building construction was in. Mr. Fiser
noted that the footings were in the process of being constructed.
Chairman Ruck asked where Mr. McDaniel's property was in relation to this
property. Mr. McDaniel stated that his property was immediately to the east at a
slightly higher elevation. The height issue was further discussed.
Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the proposed building height and
explained.
Terry Burruss asked how large the observation tower was (building footprint).
Mr. Fiser noted that it was approximately 16 feet by 16 feet.
There was a motion to approve the setback variance for the garage, as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent. The variance was approved.
There was a second motion to approve the requested building height variance,
as recommended by staff. The motion was briefly discussed. The motion failed
by a vote of 1 aye, 3 nays and 1 absent. The variance was denied.
3