HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6844 Staff AnalysisMay 22, 2000
Item No.: 1
File No.
Owner-
Address:
Descri 2ti.on :
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6844
Nancy Mae Ivy
8507 Shelly Drive
Lot 73, Windamere
R-2
Variances are requested from the
accessory structure area and
separation requirements of Section
36-156 to permit a detached carport
with reduced front and side yard
setbacks and reduced separation
from the principal structure.
The house has only a single -car
carport. Additional covered
parking was needed to protect the
applicant's vehicle. The carport
has been in place since November
1998.
Single Family
Single Fami*
New driveway must have a paved apron to avoid gravel being
dragged onto the street.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 8507 Shelly Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. In November 1998 the property owner placed a
free-standing, 10' X 20' carport structure adjacent to the
north side of the house. The carport has a side yard
setback of 1.5 feet, a front yard setback of 32.3 feet, is
separated from the residence by 1 foot and has been placed
May 22, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
over a 5 foot easement. Accessory structures are required
to have side and front yard setbacks of 3 feet and 60 feet
respectively and are to be separated from the residence by a
minimum of 6 feet. Approval must be given by all utilities
and Public Works for encroachments over easements. The
violation was found by Codes Enforcement. Once the
applicant was notified of the violation, she applied to the
Board of Adjustment for variances. The applicant has stated
that additional covered parking was needed to protect her
vehicles since she had only a single -car carport.
Staff does have concerns about the placement of the
structure. This lot is typical of those in the neighborhood
in that the home has been pushed closer to one side,
resulting in one reduced side yard and one larger side yard.
The house adjacent to the north has the reduced side closest
to the applicant's property. Placing the carport between
the two homes does create congestion which is compounded by
the structure being placed over the easement. The reduced
separation between the carport and the applicant's home is,
in and of itself, not an issue since the carport is
constructed of metal and is open on all sides. The
separation requirement is primarily to address fire
department access and to allow passage of light and air.
The metal, open -sided carport does not appear to impact
those issues. Moving the carport to the rear yard would
address the congestion issue but it would require removal of
a large, mature tree. Staff does not want to 'see the tree
removed for the sake of the carport. One option is to
relocate the carport to the paved driveway at a point in
front of the house's carport. Placing the carport adjacent
to the front of the house would result in a front yard
setback of 12± feet with the carport being 22-23 feet from
the curb of the street. The visual impact of the carport
would be greater if it was placed in front of the house but
the issues of congestion and the easement encroachment would
be resolved. Since the carport is a "portable" structure,
no replat would be required to allow the carport to cross
the building line. There has been no public notification of
the alternative suggested by staff.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variances as filed.
2
May 22, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000)
The applicant, Ms. Ivy, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
denial. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained staff's
concerns.
Ms. Ivy briefly described the placement of the carport. In
response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Ivy stated that the
carport was not permanently anchored and could be moved if
utility companies needed access to the easement. Ms. Ivy stated
that she owned the property and had lived in the home since 1992.
At the request of Fred Gray, Tad Borkowski of the Public Works
Department explained the requirement to provide a paved driveway
apron to prevent gravel being dragged into the street. .
Gary Langlais asked Ms. Ivy if she had considered an alternative
location. Ms. Ivy responded that the structure could not be
placed in the rear yard without removing a mature tree and that
placing the carport in front of the house would be more
obtrusive.
William Ruck asked Ms. Ivy if she had spoken with her neighbor to
the north. Ms. Ivy responded that they spoke "in passing" and
that there was no word of objection from them.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed.
2. A paved driveway apron is to be installed per Public Works
requirements.
3. Approval must be received from all utility companies to
allow the carport to remain over the easement.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3