HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6873 Staff AnalysisJuly 31, 2000
Item No.: 3
File No..
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
,Tri G1 -i f nati nn
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analvsis:
Z-6873
B. D. and June Starkey
#3 Shannon Drive
Lot 2 and North 1-,� of Lot 3,
Paschel Heights
Variances are requested from
the accessory structure area
and separation requirements of
Section 36-156.
The applicant desires to have
additional covered parking beyond
the existing one -car carport. The
structure cannot be moved back to
the required setback because of a
swimming pool.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at #3 Shannon Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The residence has a small, single -car carport.
The applicant proposes to construct a detached, two -car
garage south of the house. The garage will have a front
yard setback -of 30 feet and will'be separated from the house
by 2-3 feet. The code requires accessory structures to have
a front yard setback of at least 60 feet and a separation
from the principal structure of 6 feet.
July 31, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
proposed garage is to be built in line with the front wall
of the home and will be constructed in an architectural
style that complements the house. The structure cannot be
pushed further into the rear yard because of the presence of
a swimming pool and deck. The structure will be located
nearly 50 feet from the edge of the street. A row of 5±
feet tall hedges is located along the south and street
perimeters of the property, lessening the visual impact of
the garage. If the garage structure were built as an
addition to the house rather than as a freestanding
structure, it would conform to or exceed all required
setbacks. Architectural constraints make it more desirable
to build the garage as a freestanding structure. Although
the garage is separated by only 2-3 feet from the house, the
separation is measured from an unenclosed patio, not the
main, enclosed body of the house. The reduced separation
should not be an issue of concern as long as the'patio
remains unenclosed, allowing for ease of passage between the
structures.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
separation variances subject to the patio on the south side
of the house not being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the patio on the south side of the house not being enclosed.
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.
2