Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5721 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: October 5, 1993 2. Case No.: Z-5721 3. Reauest: Conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 1,040 square foot accessory dwelling on an R-2 zoned,.3± acre lot. 4. Location: 4621 Eastwood Road 5. Owner/Anvlicant: Martha Caradine 6. Existing Status: Single family dwelling with an existing 712 square foot quanset but style accessory building. 7. Pr The quanset but is to be removed and the accessory dwelling constructed in its place. 8. Staff Regommend i n: Denial, on the grounds that the proposed accessory dwelling does not conform to ordinance standards defining the required subordinate relationship for an accessory dwelling. 9. P151nning gommiUsion ReCommendatiQn: Denial of the conditional use permit application 10. Conditionsr I Remaining to be R lv None 11. Right--of-Way I sub -a: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded with: A Planning Commission vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent 13. Objectors: There were several neighborhood residents in opposition to the proposal present at the Planning Commission meeting. 14. Neighborhood Plan: Boyle Park (10) FILE NQ,; z-5721 _ NAME: LQCATIQN: OWNERIAPPLICAN PRQPQSA-L: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARD: 1. Site Location Caradine Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 4621 Eastwood Road Martha Caradine A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 1,040 square foot accessory dwelling on this R-2 zoned .3 acre lot. Variances are requested to allow for the size of the structure which exceeds ordinance standards by 340 square feet and for the rear yard coverage which exceeds ordinance standards by 87.5 square feet. The property is located on the east side of Eastwood Drive which is in the Westwood Addition, south of Asher Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neigrhborhogd This portion of the Westwood neighborhood is comprised of single family homes on standard city lots. The majority of the adjacent portion of Westwood is comprised of single family homes on larger tracts. Two blocks north of this site is a large area of commercial and industrial zoning, fronting on Asher Avenue. The concept of an accessory dwelling, within the confines of the zoning ordinance, is appropriate for the neighborhood. It is felt by staff that the proposed accessory dwelling exceeds ordinance standards to such a degree so as not to be compatible with the neighborhood. If the size of the proposed structure were reduced to comply with ordinance standards, it would perhaps be a more compatible use. 3. On -Site Driv ncl P rkin There are currently two driveways on the site, a concrete paved driveway leading to the principal dwelling and a second, unpaved driveway leading to the rear of the property. FILE NO • Z-5721 (Continued) 4. Screening and Buffers None required. 5. City Engineer Comments No engineering comments 6. Utility Comments No utility comments as of this writing. 7. Analysis The maximum permitted floor area allowed by ordinance for accessory dwellings is 700 square feet. The proposed accessory dwelling is 1,040 square feet in area with a 260 square foot carport for a total area of 1,300 square feet. The principal dwelling is just over 2,000 square feet in area. Staff questions whether the proposed structure truly meets the ordinance definition of an accessory dwelling which is to be subordinate in both land coverage and gross floor area to the principal dwelling on the lot. 8. Staff Recompndation Staff recommends denial of this application on the grounds that the proposed structure does not conform to ordinance standards defining the required subordinate relationship for an accessory dwelling. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and outlined the concern about the size of the proposed accessory structure and the lack of a true subordinate relationship to the existing principal dwelling on the lot. The Committee felt that there was a positive aspect to the removal of the existing metal quanset but in the rear yard. It was noted that the property has a large rear yard, but it was felt that the proposed accessory dwelling is out of scale. The Committee asked staff to obtain photos of the site and the existing buildings. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. 2 FILE NQ.: Z-5721 (CQntinugd) PLANNING GOMMISSIQN ACTIO : (AUGUST 24, 1993) The applicant, Martha Caradine, was present. There were several objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of denial. Martha Caradine addressed the Commission. She stated that the proposed accessory dwelling would be occupied only by family members. Chairman Walker asked Ms. Caradine if she was aware of the 700 square foot ordinance standard for accessory dwellings and staff's disapproval of the structure which she proposes. Ms. Caradine stated that she had a particular plan in mind for a premanufactured, log cabin structure and wanted approval for the size structure proposed. Elizabeth Trantham, of 4713 Eastwood Street, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. She stated that the residents of Westwood Addition are opposed to a second dwelling on any lot in the subdivision. Ms. Trantham presented the Commission with a petition, signed by 115 Westwood residents, in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. Commissioner Woods asked Ms. Trantham if the fact that Ms. Caradine was replacing an existing, unsightly accessory building with a new structure made any difference. Ms. Trantham replied that she would like to see the existing building removed, but not at the cost of replacing it with the proposed accessory dwelling. Louis Waldron, of 4613 Eastwood Road, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. He stated that he feared Ms. Caradine would rent out the structure and not use it solely for family members. In response to a question from the Commission, staff responded that the property owner was required to occupy one of the dwellings on the property, but there was no restriction on who could occupy the second dwelling. A couple of those persons in opposition then questioned whether the notices were proper. Ms. Caradine responded that she mailed the required notice based on a list obtained from an abstract company. 3 FILE Z-5721 (Continued) Staff assured the Commission that the proper procedure had been followed. Commissioners VonTungeln and McDaniel then voiced their opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The application was denied. 4 August 24, 1993 ITEM 21 FILE Z-5721 DAME : LQCATZCN: QWNERIAPPLICANT: PRGPGSAL- ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: I 1. ,gite LoCatiO Caradine Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 4621 Eastwood Road Martha Caradine A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 1,040 square foot accessory dwelling on this R-2 zoned .3 acre lot. Variances are requested to allow for the size of the structure which exceeds ordinance standards by 340 square feet and for the rear yard coverage which exceeds ordinance standards by 87.5 square feet. The property is located on the east side of Eastwood Drive which is in the Westwood Addition, south of Asher Avenue. 2, Cgmpatibility with i rh This portion of the Westwood neighborhood is comprised of single family homes on standard city lots. The majority of the adjacent portion of Westwood is comprised of single family homes on larger tracts. Two blocks north of this site is a large area of commercial and industrial zoning, fronting on Asher Avenue. The concept of an accessory dwelling, within the confines of the zoning ordinance, is appropriate for the neighborhood. It is felt by staff that the proposed accessory dwelling exceeds ordinance standards to such a degree so as not to be compatible with the neighborhood. If the size of the proposed structure were reduced to comply with ordinance standards, it would perhaps be a more compatible use. 3. Qn-Site Driv s and Parking There are currently two driveways on the site, a concrete paved driveway leading to the principal dwelling and a second, unpaved driveway leading to the rear of the property. August 24, 1993 � OR ITEM 21 n in FILE Z-5721 4. Screening -and Buffers None required. 5. City Engineer comments No engineering comments 6. ili mm n No utility comments as of this writing. 7. AniY-i, The maximum permitted floor area allowed by ordinance for accessory dwellings is 700 square feet. The proposed accessory dwelling is 1,040 square feet in area with a 260 square foot carport for a total area of 1,300 square feet. The principal dwelling is just over 2,000 square feet in area. t Staff questions whether the proposed structure truly meets the ordinance definition of an accessory dwelling which is to be subordinate in both land coverage and gross floor area to the principal dwelling on the lot. 8. Staff Recgmmendati n Staff recommends denial of this application on the grounds that the proposed structure does not conform to ordinance standards defining the required subordinate relationship for an accessory dwelling. SDIVZ Y MMITTEE CQMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and outlined the concern about the size of the proposed accessory structure and the lack of a true subordinate relationship to the existing principal dwelling on the lot. The Committee felt that there was a positive aspect to the removal of the existing metal quanset but in the rear yard. It was noted that the property has a large rear yard, but it was felt that the proposed accessory dwelling is out of scale. The Committee asked staff to obtain photos of the site and the existing buildings. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. 2 August 24, 1993 S9 DiVi a-IDN IT 21n in FILE Z- 72 PLANNING CpMMI T A TT (AUGUST 24, 1993) The applicant, Martha Caradine, was present. There were several objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of denial. Martha Caradine addressed the Commission. She stated that the proposed accessory dwelling would be occupied only by family members. Chairman Walker asked Ms. Caradine if she was aware of the 700 square foot ordinance standard for accessory dwellings and staff's disapproval of the structure which she proposes. Ms. Caradine stated that she had a particular plan in mind for a premanufactured, log cabin structure and wanted approval for the size structure proposed. Elizabeth Trantham, of 4713 Eastwood Street, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. She stated that the residents of Westwood Addition are opposed to a second dwelling on any lot in the subdivision. Ms. Trantham presented the Commission with a petition, signed by 115 Westwood residents, in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. Commissioner Woods asked Ms. Trantham if the fact that Ms. Caradine was replacing an existing, unsightly accessory building with a new structure made any difference. Ms. Trantham replied that she would like to see the existing building removed, but not at the cost of replacing it with the proposed accessory dwelling. Louis Waldron, of 4613 Eastwood Road, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. He stated that he feared Ms. Caradine would rent out the structure and not use it solely for family members. In response to a question from the Commission, staff responded that the property owner was required to occupy one of the dwellings on the property, but there was no restriction on who could occupy the second dwelling. A couple of those persons in opposition then questioned whether the notices were proper. Ms. Caradine responded that she mailed the required notice based on a list obtained from an abstract company. 3 August 24, 1993 OVBDIVISICN IT 21 (Continued) FILE Z-5721 staff assured the Commission that the proper procedure had been followed. Commissioners VonTungeln and McDaniel then voiced their opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted. The vote was 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The application was denied. 4