Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7564 Staff AnalysisJanuary 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7564 Owner: Harriet and Clarence Pollock Address: 216 Normandy Road Description: All of Lot 88 and part of Lots 87 and 89, Normandy Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow building additions with reduced side yard setbacks and which across a rear platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. 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 216 Normandy Road is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Normandy Road. The property slopes upward from the street to the front of the house. There is a platted common area (park -like area) immediately north of the property, extending to the east. The lot has a 25 foot platted building line across the front and a 35 foot platted building line across the rear of the property. Staff believes the rear building line was platted to protect the park -like area to the north. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont. The applicants propose to construct two (2) additions to the existing house. The first is a new second story addition above an existing den at the northwest corner of the existing house. The second story addition will be located 7.3 feet from the side (west) property line, and will not extend outside the existing footprint of the house. The existing house at this point encroaches across the rear 35 foot platted building line by approximately six (6) feet. The applicants also propose to remove the existing single -car garage structure at the east end of the house, and construct a new unenclosed two -car carport. The proposed carport will be 20.7 feet by 19.7 feet, and be located 0.7 foot from the side (east) property line. Additionally, the proposed carport structure will extend approximately two (2) feet across the rear 35 foot platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side yard setbacks of 8 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these standards for the proposed additions. Although the side setback and building line encroachment at the northwest corner of the house is existing, the addition of a second story represents an increase in intensity and requires variances. Staff supports the requested variances for the proposed encroachments, with the exception of the side yard setback variance for the proposed carport structure. Staff feels that there is room within the rear yard to push the proposed carport addition to the north and provide an increased side yard setback. Given the fact that the proposed carport has a corner relation to the side property line and is unenclosed, staff could support a side yard setback of 1.5 feet. This would require that the carport be pushed back 2 to 3 feet, which would be no more of an encroachment across the rear platted building line than the existing northwest corner of the structure. Guttering must also be provided on the carport structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the rear building line for the proposed additions. 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 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The carport structure must have a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 feet from the east property line. 3. Guttering must be provided on the carport structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. Staff recommends denial of the proposed 0.7 foot side yard setback for the carport structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) Carolyn Lindsey was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval for all requested variances, except the proposed side yard setback (0.7 foot) for the carport structure. Carolyn Lindsey addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that the carport structure could be built and maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the east. She noted that the existing slope of the property makes the proposed location of the carport desirable. She also noted that the carport structure would have a hip -type roof and would be guttered. Andrew Francis asked if the required sign was posted on the property. Ms. Lindsey stated that it was. There was a brief discussion about the proposed carport structure. Ms. Lindsey noted that the requested 0.7 foot setback was from the side property line to the gutter. Chairman Ruck asked if there would be a problem moving the carport structure back. Ms. Lindsey explained that moving the carport structure further back would make the cars too visible from the rear yard. There was additional discussion pertaining to the proposed side yard setback. 3 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if the property owners were willing to move the structure back one (1) foot, which would result in a 14 to 16 inch setback to the support column. He indicated that he could support that setback. Andrew Francis concurred with Mr. Richburg. Ms. Lindsey revised the application to move the carport structure back one (1) foot further into the rear yard. There was a motion to approve the revised application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 4