HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6030-A Staff AnalysisAugust 26, 1996
2
File No. -
Owner:
Address-
Des -ri tion•
Zoned -
variance Re ested:
Justification:
Present ❑se of PrQ ert .
Proposed ❑ste of Property:
Staff Report
A. Public Warks Comments:
Z -6030-A
Charles Vines and Nancy Vines
2100 N. Beechwood
Lot 1, Block 4, Country Club Heights
R-2 Single Family
From the height and area
regulations of Section 36-156 of
the Code of Ordinances to permit
construction of an accessory
building less than 15 feet from
street side yard and that exceeds
30% of required rear yard setback
area.
As follows:
1) Only reasonable access from
alley.
2) The smaller than normal lot
size reduces total rear yard area.
3) Neighbors north on alley have
garages that are believed to be in
excess of 30%.
4) To force the 30% rule by
setting the building back from the
alley would have the result of
having virtually no yard for
landscaping or patio.
5) The proposed garage and
location is in keeping with the
neighborhood and adjoining
properties.
Vacant lot
Single family
This area continues to have surface run-off problems
associated with steep grades and poor street and drainage
systems. Public works has provided temporary construction
to aid in the control of drainage and has developed
August 26, 1996
Item No.: 2 Cont.
preliminary sketches of the area to plan for a larger yet to
be funded improvement. The project would involve widening
and reconstruction of grades associated with Stonewall and
the alley. Construction of this garage and driveway should
be coordinated with Public Works so that it will not
conflict with needed improvements in the area.
B. Staff Anal Sis•
The owners of the R-2 zoned property located at 2100 N.
Beechwood have recently begun construction of a new, two-
story residence at that location. All permits were properly
obtained and the proposed house complies with all required
setbacks. The applicants also desire to construct a
detached, two -car garage to be located on the rear portion
of the property, taking access off of the alley. The
proposed garage exceeds the 30 percent coverage limit and is
located 13 feet from the street side property line.
The Ordinance states that accessory buildings may not occupy
more than 30 percent of the required rear yard area, meaning
such a structure could not exceed 337 square feet on this
particular lot. The ordinance also requires accessory
buildings to maintain a 15 foot setback from street side
property lines. 520 square feet of the proposed garage is
located in the required rear yard, a coverage of 46 percent.
After reviewing the request and visiting the site, staff
believes the request to be reasonable. The lot is only 45
feet wide, less than the typical 50 foot wide lots in the
area. This reduction in lot width has the effect of
reducing the square footage of any structures which may be
allowed in the required rear yard area. The construction of
any two -car garage would exceed the allowable percentage.
The applicants have pulled the garage 5 feet away from the
alley/rear property line which removes some of the structure
out of the required rear yard. To move the garage farther
away from the alley would greatly reduce the yard area
between the house and the garage. The proposed structure is
not out of character with other properties in the area, many
of which have large accessory buildings located on the
alley. The reduction in the street side yard setback from
15 feet to 13 feet is not of great importance since access
to the garage is to be taken from the alley. That provision
was written into the ordinance to assure adequate sight -
distance for persons backing out of a garage directly onto
the street.
C. staff R commendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage and
setback variances subject to the following conditions:
2
August 26, 1996
Item No.• 2 Cont.
1. Construction of the garage and driveway must be
coordinated with Public Works so that it will not
conflict with needed street and drainage improvements
in the area.
2. Access to the garage is to be from the alley, not from
Stonewall Street.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 26, 1996)
The applicant, Charles Vines, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, with conditions.
Mr. Vines addressed the Board and stated that he agreed to comply
with the conditions noted in the staff recommendation.
David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed the City's efforts to
improve streets and drainage in the area.
A motion was made to approve the requested area coverage and
setback variances subject to compliance with the conditions noted
in the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
3