HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6870 Staff AnalysisJuly 31, 2000
Item No.: C
File No.. Z-6870
Owner: Kathryn Karr
Address: 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Descri tion• Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Block 8,
Midland Hills
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the accessory structure area and
separation provisions of Section
36-156 ,and -.the area regulations of
Section 36-255.
Justification: The reduced size of this lot
creates the need for the variances.
The buildable area is limited by
the slope of the property.
Present Use of Pro erty: Single Family
Proposed Use of Pro err: Single Family
Staff Re ort:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Anal sis:
The R-3 zoned lot located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. is
occupied by a two-story, frame, single-family residence.
The applicant proposes to construct a bathroom addition onto
the west side of the house, resulting in a reduced side yard
setback of 3 feet. The Code requires a side yard setback of
5 feet for this lot. The applicant also proposes to
construct a 12' X 20', freestanding carport structure in
front of the house. This carport will have a front yard
setback of 18 feet and will be separated from the residence
by 2 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 60
July 31, 2000
Item No.: C (Cont.)
feet for accessory structures and requires that they be
separated from the principle structure by at least 6 feet.
There are circumstance unique to this property that justify
some relief from the literal provisions of the code. The
property itself is small, with side lot lengths of 60 feet
and 98 feet. The property slopes down rather severely from
both Kavanaugh Blvd. and Charles Street, leaving a level
building pad only in the area immediately in front of the
house.
The minor variance requested for the bathroom addition
should have no impact on adjacent properties. The proposed
setback ranges from 3 feet to 4.5 feet for the 8' X 9'
bathroom addition. The distance between the applicant's
home and the home on the adjacent lot increases from the
front of the lots to the rear. At the point where the
bathroom addition is proposed, there is 20± feet,between the
two homes.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed location for the
carport structure. This lot and the adjacent property have
abutting driveways. The applicant proposes to place the
carport over her portion of the driveway. The house on the
adjacent property sits much closer to the street; within
10'-12' of the sidewalk. The front door on this adjacent
home faces the side property line, not the front. The
effect is that the applicant's proposed carport would be in
front of the neighbor's front door. Staff believes a better
alternative would be to turn the carport 90° so that it
would be parallel, not perpendicular, to the applicant's
home and to pull it away from the side property line. By
making those adjustments and keeping the carport closer to
the front of the applicant's home, the impact on the
neighboring property could be reduced.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance to allow the proposed bathroom addition.
Staff does not recommend approval of the setback and
separation variances to allow the carport in the location
proposed by the applicant.
2
July 31, 2000
Item No.: C (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had notified only 4
persons, those whose property directly abutted her own or were
located across the street. After a brief discussion, the Board
determined that the applicant had failed to provide proper notice
as stipulated by the Board's Bylaws.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to
complete the required notices. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has amended the request by turning the proposed
carport 900 so that it is parallel to not perpendicular to her
home and has moved the structure away from the west property
line. Staff now recommends approval of the variance requests
subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on
all sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the required notices had been
completed. Staff recommended approval of the amended application
subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on
all sides.
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
August 28, 2000,
OTHER MATTER
File No.
Name: _
Address•
Type of Issue:
Staff Re ort:
Z-6870
Kathryn Karr
1123 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Request for rehearing
On July 31, 2000, the Board granted variances allowing the owner
of the R-3 zoned property located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. to
construct a bathroom addition onto the house and a freestanding
carport to be located in front of the house. There were no
objectors present at the meeting and no letters or phone calls of
objection had been received by staff. On August 8, 2000, the
adjacent property owner contacted staff and voiced objection to
the proposed carport. It is that neighbor's contention that the
applicant indicated that the carport would not be built. The
neighbor was informed by staff that the carport had always been
part of the application, that it was included on the notice
(which had been signed by the neighbor), that staff was not made
aware of any objections and that the Board had approved the
variance request.
After conferring with the City Attorney's office, staff advised
the neighbor that he could request a rehearing as outlined in
Article V of the Board's bylaws. Article V reads as follows:
ARTICLE V.
Rehearings
Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Zoning
Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board
to reconsider the vote, made and acted upon at the next meeting
following the hearing at which the decision being appealed was
made, and which is carried by unanimous consent of all members
present at the meeting.
Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained
except: upon written request for rehearing, received by the
Secretary to the Board within ten days of the final action by the
Board from which appeal is made, and then not unless new evidence
is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at
August 28, 2000
OTHER MATTER (Cont.)
the meeting at which the hearing was originally had, which
information is to be included in the written request to the
Secretary.
Sectio% 3. If a rehearing is granted, the matter shall be put on
the calendar for the next meeting, and the required notices
issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules.
Section 4. No additional application to the Board of Adjustment
shall be allowed, unless there shall have been a substantial
change in the circumstances affecting such property since the
prior decision on the same property.
The neighbor submitted a letter on August 9, 2000 requesting the
rehearing. The applicant and the neighbor were advised that the
issue would be placed on the Board's August 28, 2000 agenda for
consideration of a rehearing.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000)
The Board was informed that Tom Peterson, of 304 Charles Street,
had dropped his request for a rehearing and that no action was
required by the Board.
2