Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0780-A Staff AnalysisDecember 21, 1998 Item No . : File No. Owner- Address• Description• Zoned• Variance Re ested: Justification: Z-6581 Clester Baker 1304 Marlyn Drive Lot 140, Section A, Twin Lakes R-2 Variances are requested from the area and separation requirements of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit placement of a detached carport with reduced setbacks and which crosses a platted building line. Applicant's Statement: I live atop the incline of the hill and there are pine and oak trees along with flowering and landscape trees in my neighbor's yard. Because of the configuration of my neighbor's yard, the pine needles, cones, bird droppings and occasional bird nest fall in my driveway and atop of my car. The pine needles, cones, and leaves clog my breathing net on my car and has charged me with added expense to keep it cleaned out regularly. Also, I had the expense of topping a couple of trees in my neighbor's yard approximately 2 years ago to try and minimize the fall -out. Due to the shape of the pine trees that hang over onto my yard, they could not be sufficiently topped to stop some of the debris from falling onto my driveway and my car. The "tree man" said it would "imbalance the trees to cut a large part of it away" so the problem continues and so do the cost of clean up. Being on the crest of the hill also increases the chance for other damage to my car caused by debris from high winds and strong rain or hail. Thank you for your December 21, 1998 Item No.: A (font Present Use of Pro ert : Pro osed Use of Propert : Staff Report: A. Public works issues: consideration of my request for a carport. Single Family Single Family 1.Recommend rejection. Building setback provides adequate parking in drives from right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 1304 Marlyn Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The site has no covered parking, the original garage/carport having been enclosed. The applicant proposes to place a detached carport structure in front of the house, over the concrete driveway. The carport will have a front yard setback of two feet and will be placed within inches of the house. The Code requires accessory structures to have a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet and to have a minimum separation from the principal structure of 6 feet. There is no place else on the property to place covered parking which the applicant feels is necessary to protect her vehicle from debris and weather. Staff does have concerns about the applicant's proposal. The proposed carport will occupy approximately 30 percent of the required front yard. A drive -by survey of the surrounding neighborhood did not reveal the presence of any similar structures. Of primary concern, is the structure's relationship to Marlyn Drive. Marlyn is a primary traffic artery into the Twin Lakes neighborhood. The street is heavily trafficked by persons entering or exiting Twin Lakes. The applicant's property is located just below the crest of a hill, at a point where sight -distance is a concern. The incidents of speeding on Marlyn are such that a speed -bump has been placed in the street several hundred feet south of the applicant's property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and building line variances. E December 21, 1998 Item No.: A (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 30, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. The applicant, Clester Baker, addressed the Board in support of her application. She stated that the carport would not be a metal structure and would be constructed so as to compliment the architecture of the house. Ms. Baker noted that there was no opposition from the neighborhood residents. She stated that she had observed the site from many angles and did not see how the carport could create a sight distance problem. Ms. Baker presented photographs showing those angles of sight. Brandon Rogers asked if shortening the carport would help to address the sight distance issue. Tad Borkowski, of the Public Works Department, stated that the problem was not only a vertical curve but a horizontal curve due to the bend in the street. He suggested deferring the item to allow Public Works to do a more thorough study of the issue. Gary Langlais noted the presence of a 6 foot tall wood fence on the neighboring property and questioned whether the proposed carport would affect visibility any more than the fence already did. William Ruck voiced concerns about the character of the neighborhood and the appearance of the proposed carport. Ms. Baker showed drawings of the proposed carport to the Board. The carport was shown to be a wood frame structure with brick support columns. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 21, 1998 meeting for further information to be provided by Public Works. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 21, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that Public Works had conducted further review of the issue and had determined that allowing the carport would not create a sight distance problem. Consequently, Public Works no longer objected to the variance. Clester Baker addressed the Board in support of her application. She stated that few people in her neighborhood had enclosed their carports and, consequently, few people would have a reason to request a variance for a carport like hers. Ms. Baker stated that her carport would not be a 'piece of junk" and would not 3 December 21, 1998 Item No.: A have a negative impact on the neighborhood. She showed a drawing of the proposed carport and described it as frame construction with wrought iron support posts and a pitched, shingled roof. Chairman Brooks noted that it was not common in the Twin Lakes neighborhood to have carports extending out from the front of the house. Brandon Rogers suggested to Ms. Baker that she shorten the proposed carport to 16 feet in length, providing greater setback from the street. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. Baker stated that she would prefer to have the carport attached to the house rather than have it be freestanding. Chairman Brooks commented that the design of the proposed carport was an important consideration, since there were no similar structures in the area. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, summarized Ms. Baker's request as for a frame carport with wrought iron supports and a pitched, shingled roof. He stated that an attached carport might be more aesthetically pleasing and more sturdy. Mr. Carney noted that a building permit would have to be issued and the carport would have to be built to code specifications. He stated that the Board needed to determine if it was appropriate to allow construction across the building line. William Ruck reiterated that appearance and design were important since this carport would be the first of its type on the street and would, in a sense, be setting a precedent for future similar proposals in the neighborhood. Ms. Baker reminded the Board that there were no objections from neighborhood residents. A motion was made to approve the requested setback and building line variances to allow the proposed carport as described by the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. 2. The carport is to remain unenclosed. 3. The carport is not to exceed 16 feet in length, extending out from the front of the house. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 open position. 4