HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6091 Staff AnalysisJanuary 29,_1996
item 1
File NQ.
gwner:
A dr s :
Descriptio
Z
e criptio
Zoned .
Variance ReQuested:
justification:
Present Use of Propel:
Proposed use of Pro erty:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6091
Stephen Bolden
#59 Berney way Drive
Lot 25, Block 19, Chenal Valley
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
height and area exceptions of
Section 36-156 to permit
construction of a freestanding
carport to be located less than 60
feet from the front property line.
The proposed location is necessary
to maintain the architectural
integrity of the home.
Single -Family residence
Any damage to curb and gutter during construction shall be
repaired at owner's expense.
B. staff Analysis:
The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on
this R-2 zoned lot in Chenal Valley. As a component of the
project, the applicant proposes a freestanding, unenclosed
carport to be built in front of the house. The carport is
defined as an accessory structure and is required by the
Ordinance to have a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet.
As proposed, the structure will have a front yard setback of
37 feet. The structure has been reviewed and approved by
the Chenal Architectural Review Committee. The applicant
states that the proposed carport must be located as shown to
maintain the home's architectural integrity.
The lot is located in a newly developed phase of Chenal
Valley. Within two blocks of this property, there are only
two homes now being constructed; the remaining lots are
January 29, , 1996
still undeveloped. The lots on either side of this property
are undeveloped. The property is located on a cul-de-sac
and the house itself is proposed to sit 50+ feet from the
front property line, far exceeding the 25 feet required by
ordinance. As such, the proposed carport should have no
impact on adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommender ion:
staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. The carport structure is to remain open and unenclosed
on all four sides.
BOARD OF AD STMENT: (JANUARY 29, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had determined that
the carport was in fact attached to the house, not detached as
previously thought. As such, the carport did not require a
variance since it met the required setbacks for the principle
structure.
A motion was made to withdraw the application. The motion was
approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
K