HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3997 Staff AnalysisJune 20, 1983
Item No. 1 - Z-3997
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Larry Jacimore
6908 Kingwood Road
Lot 235, Kingwood Place Addition
"R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2.D to permit
a 3 -foot side yard and a 9 -foot rear
yard for an attached garage and storage
addition.
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
STAFF REPORT:
Single Family
Same
There were no adverse comments from reviewing agencies. A
staff visit to the site revealed the following:
1. The existing structure apparently contained a garage at
some point and has been closed in.
2. Substantial clear area exists beside the existing
structure inside the setbacks to accommodate an
addition for garage purposes.
3. The lot is not shallower than the neighborhood average.
Its grade from the street toward the rear is more the
issue.
4. Adjacent structures are rather close on lots to the
rear.
5. The Ordinance allows only 30 percent coverage of a rear
yard by accessory structure. In this instance, we see
34 percent by the principle building.
6. Where most intrusion into a side yard or rear yard
represents a small percentage of the width or depth,
this proposal represents 50 percent of the width of the
lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the request as filed.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD ACTION: (April 18, 1983)
The applicant was not present. He had written a letter and
asked that it be deferred in light of the staff
recommendation and stated that he would try to work out some
details in the meantime. The Board moved to defer the item
to the May 16 meeting, and the motion passed - 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy.
STAFF COMMENT
The applicant says that he has not had an opportunity to
revise his plan and requests an additional one month
deferral.
BOARD ACTION: (May 16, 1983)
The Board moved to defer this item to the June 20 Board of
Adjustment meeting. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. He stated that he had spent some
time with his architect considering other ways to accomplish
the addition that he was requesting and it was the
architect's conclusion that there was no other way to make
the addition compatible with the existing structure and the
neighborhood character. The applicant showed drawings of
the proposed roof treatment and the drainage plans
associated with the development and he also showed copies of
the floor plan for the proposed addition. There was a
lengthy discussion of alternatives and various other aspects
of the development. After the discussion, the Board moved
to approve the application as filed. The motion passed:
4 ayes,'3 noes and 2 absent.