Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7495 Staff AnalysisOctober 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7495 Owner: Andrea W. Van Deventer Address: 3015 Circlewood Drive Description: Lot 167, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and building line provisions of Sections 36-156, 36-254 and 31-12 to allow a porch addition and carport with reduced setbacks and which cross a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT I Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 3015 Circlewood Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family structure. There is a one -car driveway from Circlewood Drive which serves as access. There is a 30 foot front platted building line on the property. The existing steps leading to the home's front porch extend across the platted building line by approximately four (4) feet. The applicant proposes to construct a new 12 foot by 18.3 foot covered porch (unenclosed) on front of the house. The porch will have steps and a new walk leading to the front property line. The porch will be located 22 feet from the front property line, extending eight (8) feet across the platted October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. building line. The steps will be located approximately 17 feet back from the front property line. The applicant also proposes to construct a 10 foot by 10 foot detached carport structure (unenclosed) just off the southwest corner of the existing house, covering a portion of the existing driveway. The carport will be located 21.5 feet back from the front property line, with no setback from the side (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot front setback for principal structures. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum 60 foot front setback for accessory structures, with Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requiring a minimum three (3) foot side yard setback. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that platted building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed carport and porch construction. Staff supports the front setback and building line variances associated with the proposed porch construction. Staff views the proposed porch construction as reasonable, as there are other structures in the area with front setbacks less than 30 feet. Additionally, given the fact that the property is located within a curve, the house with new porch will not have the appearance of being much, if any, closer to the street than the house to the south. Staff also could support a reduced setback for a carport structure with the same reasoning, if it were attached to the house. However, staff cannot support the 0 foot side setback for the carport structure as proposed. Staff feels that the applicant should explore attaching the carport structure to the house, with adjustments made to the driveway, providing an increased side yard setback. Even though the carport structure is unenclosed, some side setback is needed to allow the construction and maintenance of the structure without encroaching onto the property to the south. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed porch and carport structures. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Conti _ C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the variances associated with the proposed carport structure. Staff recommends approval of the variances associated with the proposed porch structure, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Andrea Van Deventer was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item, noting that the application had been revised to move the proposed carport back and attach it to the side of the house. Staff noted that the only variance associated with the revised carport location was a minor side yard setback variance (6 feet proposed, 6.75 feet minimum required). Staff recommended approval of the application, as revised, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line for the proposed porch structure. Andrea Van Deventer addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the proposed additions, and the reasons for needing the additions and variances. Chairman Ruck asked if it would be a problem to move the driveway for the new carport location. Ms. Van Deventer indicated that it would be no problem. Ms. Van Deventer explained that visually the proposed porch addition would not adversely affect the area. She explained that the porch would be designed to enhance the existing home's architecture. There was a brief discussion concerning the sidewalk from the porch to the driveway. Chairman Ruck asked if the porch would be enclosed. Ms. Van Deveneter stated that it would not be enclosed and explained. Steve Anderson addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that the homes along Circlewood Drive do not have porches that are located close to front property lines. He stated that the proposed porch addition would adversely affect his view and explained. He explained that he was not opposed to the revised carport location. 3 October 27, 2003 ITEM N There was further discussion related to the proposed porch location and its appropriateness within the neighborhood. Andrew Francis asked if the porch could be moved or reduced in size to Mr. Anderson's satisfaction. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not prepared to answer and compromise. There was additional discussion related to the porch addition. Staff added a condition to "staff recommendation" that the proposed porch remain unenclosed. Chairman Ruck asked Ms. Van Deventer if a reduction in the size of the proposed porch could be made. Ms. Van Deventer stated that a 12 -foot deep porch would be appropriate to the design of the house. There was additional discussion related to the size of the proposed porch. Ms. Van Deveneter stated that she would amend her application and reduce the depth of the proposed porch to 10 feet. There was additional discussion related to the location of the porch and the view from the adjacent property. There was a motion to approve the variances associated with the porch addition as revised by the applicant (porch size reduced to 10 feet by 18.3 feet). The motion was passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. A second motion was made to approve the side yard setback variance associated with the revised carport location, subject to the carport remaining unenclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. There was a third motion to add the following conditions to the proposed porch addition: 1. A one -lot replat must be completed reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The porch addition must remain unenclosed. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. rd