Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8329 Staff AnalysisAPRIL 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8329 Allison D. Holland Tommy Jameson 61 Sherrill Road Lot 61, Sherrill Heights Addition R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Controls should be installed to not cause damage to adjacent properties from stormwater from the additional impervious surfaces such as driveways and rooftops. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 61 Sherrill Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Sherrill Road at the southwest corner of the lot. The driveway leads to a garage at the southwest corner of the residence. The R-2 zoned lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line and a five (5) foot utility easement along the rear (north) property line. The applicant proposes to enclose the existing garage area for additional living space and construct a new garage addition at the northwest corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be 23'-5" by 33'-7" in area and one (1) story in height. The proposed garage addition will be located five (5) feet back form the rear (north) property line and 19 feet from APRIL 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. the west side property line. The existing driveway from Sherrill Road will be removed, with a new circular driveway constructed. The new driveway will extend along the east side of the residence and into the rear yard to access the proposed garage addition. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the garage addition with a rear setback of five (5) feet. The applicant is also constructing an addition on the northeast corner of the residence. This addition exceeds the minimum setbacks from all property lines. Staff does not support the rear yard setback variance, as requested. Staff believes the proposed building addition is located too close to the rear (north) property line. The proposed five (5) foot setback represents an 80 percent encroachment into the required 25 foot rear setback. The residence immediately to the north is located approximately 20 to 25 feet back from the dividing rear property line. In this particular instance staff could support a rear setback of ten (10) feet. This is based on the fact that the proposed addition occupies a small percentage of the overall rear yard area. If the applicant were willing to revise the application to provide a rear setback of at least ten (10), staff could support the application. As filed, staff believes the proposed addition to the northwest corner of the residence will be located too close to the residence immediately to the north. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 2008) Tommy Jameson and Allison Holland were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Tommy Jameson addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the history of the garage at the front corner of the house. He noted that the property owner was trying to save large trees within the front yard area. He also noted that the proposed garage addition represented only a small percentage of the rear 25 feet of the lot. He explained that he neighbors were in support of the application. Chairman Burruss asked if the proposed garage addition was for two (2) vehicles. Mr. Jameson indicated that it was. James Van Dover asked about the neighbor to the north. Mr. Jameson explained that they were in support of the application. Allison Holland explained that the property owner to the north was in support of the proposed garage addition. APRIL 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. Scott Smith noted that staff suggested a 10 foot rear setback. Mr. Jameson explained that a 10 foot rear setback had been considered but it would probably eliminate the use of the addition as a garage. The issues of driveway location and tree preservation were discussed. Ms. Holland explained that she was trying to save the large oak trees in the front yard and create a garage area which was more easily accessed. The issue of the proximity of the proposed addition to the rear property line and the house immediately to the north was discussed. The issue of revising the application was discussed. Staff noted that if the proposed addition were located 10 feet back from the rear property line the width of the addition was not an issue as long as it was located at least eight (8) feet back from the west side property line. Mr. Jameson revised the application to provide a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback and a minimum eight (8) foot side yard (west) setback. There was a motion to approve the revised application. The motion was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved.