Loading...
Z-8778 Staff AnalysisJUNE 25, 2012 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8778 Owner: Kori and Eric Gordon Applicant: Jacob White Address: 2623 N. Pierce Street Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 23, Parkview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a new residence with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence and Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Anaiysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2623 N. Pierce Street is comprised of two (2) platted lots. Lots 1 and 2, Block 23, Parkview Addition. The property is located at the southeast corner of N. Pierce and "Y" Streets. Lot 1 contains a one-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from "Y" Street at the northeast corner of the property. Lot 2 is currently vacant. A house which previously existed on the lot has been removed. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story single family residence on the two (2) lots, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed house will have a 25 foot setback from the front (west) property line and a 15 foot setback from the rear (east) property line. Eight (8) foot setbacks will be provided along the north and south side property lines. A driveway from "Y" Street will access a garage at the northeast corner of the house. The footprint of the residence, including porches, will be approximately 7,200 square feet. JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T. 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 new residence with a 15 foot rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Similar variances have been approved in the past for houses in this general area. As noted previously, the footprint of the proposed house is approximately 7,200 square feet including the porches. This amounts to a lot coverage of approximately 52 percent. If the two (2) lots were developed individually, the allowed building footprint would be 7,220 square feet (3,480 for Lot 1 and 3800 for Lot 2). In addition, accessory buildings with a maximum area of 712.5 square feet (337.5 for Lot 1 and 375 for Lot 2) would be allowed. The proposed building plan for the property leaves very little rear yard space for accessory buildings. As such, staffs support will be conditioned on there being no accessory structures on the property. Therefore, the overall massing of the proposed residence will be very similar to what would be allowed if the lots were developed with two (2) houses. Staff believes the proposed residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the following condition: No accessory structures will be allowed on the site. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (June 25, 2012) Kori Gordon was present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors and two (2) supporters present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Kori Gordon addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that a larger garage was needed because of the number of persons in her family who drive and would be driving. She explained that on -street parking was difficult because of the existing street widths. She noted that a detached garage had been discussed, but an attached garage better suited their needs. She also noted that guttering and French drains would help the drainage problem in the area. Jennifer Peacock also addressed the Board in support. She explained that the project architect had initially miscalculated the required setbacks and the house was larger than what is being proposed. She also noted concern with on -street parking in the area. Chris Monroe also spoke in support. He stated that he was the property owner and resident immediately to the south. He noted that he had torn down and constructed a JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM No.. 6 XON'T new house on the adjacent property. He explained that he preferred one(1) residence on the subject property rather than two (2) residences. He also discussed the on -street parking problem in the area, and noted that a large garage was needed by the applicants. He stated that an attached garage was preferred. Jane Brown of 2620 N. Fillmore Street spoke in opposition. She discussed the impact of new development in the area on drainage. She also noted that the height of the proposed residence would have a negative impact on her property. Marilyn Zornick of 2624 N. Fillmore Street also spoke in opposition. She explained that "Y" Street was a very narrow street and parking off the street would be difficult. She explained that her rear yard was not very deep and the new residence would have a negative visual impact. She discussed the size of the new homes in this area. She discussed the view from her house to the west. Mrs. Gordon explained that there will be a large amount of landscaping along the rear property line to help screen the proposed residence. In response to a question from the Board Mrs. Gordon stated that the garage would be accessed from "Y" Street. Vice -Chairman Smith asked if there anything about the site which dictated the proposed footprint of the house. Mr. Monroe noted that "Y" Street basically functioned as an alley and a garage access would be best from "Y" Street. He explained that the lots slope downward to the east and any construction would be above the homes to the east. Mrs. Gordon explained that the footprint of the house had been larger originally, but was reduced to be more in line with ordinance requirements. Vice -Chairman Smith made additional comments related to the variance and the need to adhere to ordinance requirements. The issue of the variance was discussed further. The Board asked staff about the setback differences between accessory and principal structures. The issue was briefly discussed. Rajesh Mehta asked about the garage portion of the proposed house. The issue was briefly discussed. Robert Winchester asked about the size of the garage space. Mrs. Gordon explained the need for the attached garage space. The issue was discussed further. Brad Wingfield asked what would be located within the southeast corner of the house. Ms. Peacock noted that it would be the living area for the applicant's mother. Chairman Yates asked what portion of the house would have to be eliminated to provide the 25 foot rear set back. Mrs. Gordon noted that space for the kitchen, pantry and laundry room would be reduced. The issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Yates asked how much heated and cooled space the proposed house contained. Mr. Gordon noted approximately 5,900 square feet. Mr. Monroe noted that JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T. the size of the proposed house will be consistent with the neighborhood. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 2 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.