HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7661 Staff AnalysisJUNE 28, 2004
ITEM NO.: 13
File No.: Z-7661
Owner: Kent and Amy Bryant
Address: 8 Rosier Court
Description: Lot 825, St. Charles Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of
Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 8 Rosier Court is occupied by a one-story
brick single family residence. A two -car driveway from Rosier Court
serves as access. The property slopes downward from west to east.
There is an existing deck on the rear of the house.
The applicants propose to construct a one-story addition (23 feet by 30
feet) at the rear, northwest corner, of the structure. The proposed
addition will be located 8 to 9 feet from the rear (north) property line and
6 to 6.5 feet from the side (west) property line. The applicants also
propose to construct an addition to the existing deck structure, as noted
on the attached sketch. A portion of the deck structure will be covered,
as noted. The new deck structure will be located approximately 9.5 feet
from the rear property line.
JUNE 28, 2004
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a
minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Therefore, the applicants
are requesting variances from the standards to allow the proposed
additions with reduced rear and side setbacks.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff views the
proposed additions as an over -building of the site. The residences on
the surrounding properties appear to conform to the ordinance required
setbacks, and therefore staff feels that the proposal is out of character
with the neighborhood. The residence immediately north appears to be
located very near the required 25 foot rear setback. Therefore, the
proposed addition would only leave approximately 33 feet of rear yard
between the two (2) structures. Staff feels that the proposed
construction would have a negative impact on the surrounding
properties.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004)
Jennifer Herron was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present with concerns. Staff presented the item and explained that the
application had been revised. Staff noted that the size of the proposed addition
had been reduced, resulting in a rear yard setback of 14 to 15 feet (15 feet for
the deck addition). Staff recommended approval of the revised application,
subject to the portion of the deck structure within the rear 25 feet of the lot
remaining unenclosed.
Jennifer Herron addressed the Board in support of the application. In response
to questions from Chairman Gray, Ms. Herron noted that the addition would
include one (1) new room (home office) and enlargement of a sitting area
adjacent to the existing kitchen. Ms. Herron noted that the addition would not be
large enough for an additional bedroom.
Karl Liss addressed the Board. He stated that he would like a privacy fence
along the rear property line to help hide part of the proposed addition. The fence
issue was briefly discussed. Staff noted that the Board could impose a condition
and require the fence if it were determined that it would lessen the impact of the
addition.
2
JUNE 28, 2004
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
Terry Burruss asked how far above grade the addition would be. Ms. Herron
noted that it would be one to three feet above grade. Mr. Burruss noted that a
six-foot fence would not hide much of the addition.
Mr. Liss requested that the fence be required and that it be constructed prior to
construction of the proposed addition.
There was further discussions of the slope of the property.
Ms. Herron informed the Board that the owners would agree to construct a six-
foot high wood fence.
There was a motion to approve the revised application as recommended by staff,
subject to the following additional condition:
1. Construction of a six-foot high wood screening fence (good neighbor
fence) along the rear property line, prior to construction beginning on the
additions.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was
approved.
3