HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6795 Staff AnalysisDecember 27, 1999
Item No.: 5
File No.: Z-6795
Owner: Ernie and Elaine Dumas/
Katherine West and Glen Nishimura
Address: 805 Beechwood and 4516 "I" Street
Description: Lots 7, 8, 9 and Part of Lots 16
and 17, Block 19, Pulaski Heights
Zoned: R-5
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-259
to permit construction of a new
building with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Pro ert : Two buildings, containing
4 apartment units each
Proposed Use of Proper Same, with addition of
laundry/storage room and
1 apartment
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
i.s,damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-5 zoned property located at the northeast corner of
Beechwood and "I" Street (805 Beechwood and 4516 "I" Street)
currently contains 2, two-story, brick apartment buildings.
December 27, 1999
Item No.: 5 (Cont.
Each building contains 4 apartment units. A large portion
of the rear yard area is paved, providing a relatively
unorganized parking area. The applicants propose to
construct a 3=d building on the property. This new
structure will contain a laundry room and storage on the
ground floor and a 9t' apartment on the second floor. The
structure is proposed to have a rear yard setback of 416".
The code requires structures in the R-5 district to have a
minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The apartment
buildings were built in 1936. At or near that same time, two
other buildings were constructed on the site. The building
which was located near the northern property line was removed
many years ago. The second building which was located near
the east (alley) property line was removed approximately 3
years ago. This second building was two stories in height
and contained a garage and an upper level apartment. The
proposed new structure is to be built over the existing
foundation which remains from the previous garage/apartment
building, maintaining the previous 416" rear yard setback.
The new structure will be architecturally compatible with the
existing apartment buildings and will be smaller in area than
the previous structure. The property abuts a 20' alley on
the east. All of the properties on the east side of the
alley have detached structures which abut the alley. The
proposed new structure is not out of character with other
structures in the area. Adequate separation between
structures is provided by the 20' alley right-of-way.
The proposed 9t' unit is within the density permitted for
this R-5 zoned property. The required parking will be
provided. The applicants propose to redevelop the rear
yard/courtyard area of the site, creating proper parking
spaces and a landscaped yard where there is now only asphalt
paving.
Staff believes the proposed development will result in an
upgrade to the site which will be of benefit to the
neighborhood and should not negatively impact adjacent
properties.
2
December 27, 1999
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
C.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the Board of Directors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 27, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance
or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Board
of Directors.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3