HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6633 Staff AnalysisMarch 29, 1999
Item No.: 4
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Tustification :
Z-6633
Brian Core
2011 N. Garfield Street
Lot 21, Block 1, Altheimer's
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area coverage regulations of
Section 36-156 to permit
construction of a new carport which
exceeds the allowable 30% area
coverage.
Applicant's Statement: I am
requesting a variance from the
requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to provide
covered parking for two cars for
the above residence to be
constructed directly off the alley.
At the present time, we are parking
one car on a paved strip in the
front yard and one car on the
street. I feel that moving the
cars away from the front of the
house will also benefit the
neighborhood.
My proposal is to build a carport a
maximum of 20 feet wide and 20 feet
deep. This would be similar to
other carports in rear yards of
similar size.
I have owned the house for
approximately 2 years and have done
substantial upgrades
architecturally and structurally to
both the interior and exterior.
March 29, 1999
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Present Use of Proper : Single Family
Proposed Use of Propert : Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Recommend new structure be located 10 feet from centerline
of alley to allow 20 feet alley right-of-way versus 12 feet.
B. Staff Analvsis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 2011 N. Garfield Street is
occupied by a one-story, rock, brick and frame single-family
residence. A small accessory building is located on a rear
corner of the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 20
feet by 20 feet, open carport in the rear yard, taking
access off of the alley. The ordinance limits the area
coverage of accessory structures in the required rear yard
of this lot to 375 square feet. The proposed carport is 400
square feet in area and, when combined with the area of the
existing accessory building will have a total coverage of
520 square feet. The area of total coverage in the required
rear yard is 42 percent, exceeding the ordinance maximum of
30 percent.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable. The
proposed structure is not out of character with similar
structures scattered throughout the neighborhood. The
carport is to remain open and unenclosed, allowing for
passage of light and air and lessening the visual impact.
The proposed 20 feet by 20 feet carport is the minimum size
to allow for covering two cars. The property has no covered
parking at this time.
The alley is narrow and unimproved, with only a 12 foot
right-of-way. The applicant has proposed placing the
carport directly on the rear property line. Public Works
has requested that the carport be moved into the property 4
feet to allow for safer maneuvering and to provide 10 feet
from the alley centerline (half of a 20 foot right-of-way).
V,
March 29, 1999
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1.The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all
sides.
2.The carport is to have a rear yard setback of 4 feet,
providing the required 10 feet from the centerline of the
alley.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 29, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined above. Staff advised
the Board that the proposed carport had been slightly increased
in size and angled to provide easier access from the alley.
Staff also advised the Board that a waiver of right-of-way
dedication for the alley could only be granted by the Board of
Directors and that the applicant had been informed of this.
Staff stated that the carport could be constructed up to the
alley if the Board of Directors approved the waiver, otherwise,
the right-of-way would have to be dedicated and the carport moved
four feet off of the alley to accommodate the dedication.
The applicant requested classification of the right-of-way issue
and staff responded. The applicant was advised to meet with the
Public Works staff.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3