HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6941 Staff AnalysisDecember 18, 2000
Item No.: A
r;iP No_c Z-6941
Owner: Robert Grim
Address• 3306 "H" Street
Description: West 1-t of Lots 5 and 6, Block 8,
East Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Re ested: Variances are requested from the
accessory structure area and
separation provisions of Section
36-156.
Justification• The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analvsis:
The R-3 zoned property at 3306 "H" Street is occupied by a
one-story brick and frame, single-family residence and a
detached, garage structure. The existing garage has a front
yard setback of 18± feet, a side yard setback of 3.2 feet
and is separated from the residence by 3± feet. The
applicant proposes to remove the existing garage and build
in its place a new carport structure. The new carport will
maintain the existing 18± foot front yard and 3± foot
separation but is proposed to have a 0 foot side yard
setback. The code requires a front yard setback of 60 feet,
a side yard setback of 3 feet and a minimum separation from
the principal structure of 6 feet.
December 18, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
STAFF UPDATE:
On November 29, 2000, the applicant submitted a letter offering
the following changes to his proposed plan:
1. Rain gutters and downspouts for the roof line adjacent to
Mary Cameron's home at 900 N. Martin to insure no rain water
from his lot will flow onto hers.
2. Repositioning two carport supports to be no closer than 18
inches from the property line separating his lot and Mary
Cameron's lot next door at 900 N. Martin.
3. Insuring the overhang does not reach the property line.
4. Providing a letter to the board signed by Mary Cameron
stating her full support for this structure and giving
permission to cross her property line in a reasonable manner
as required to build this carport.
-� Staff has in the past supported side yard setbacks of as little
as 18 inches with conditions similar to those proposed by the
applicant. Staff is willing to offer support for the amended
proposal subject to compliance with the following conditions:
i
(�O 1. The carport structure is to remain open and unenclosed on
the front and sides.
2. The eave/overhang on the east side of the structure is to
be limited to no more than 6 inches.
3. Compliance with the 4 changes proposed in the letter from
the applicant, received on November 29, 2000.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 18, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the amended item and a recommendation of
approval, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
the "Staff Recommendation" above.
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
December 18, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
Staff has concerns about the proposed carport structure.
Allowing the new structure to maintain the existing 18± foot
front yard setback and 3± foot separation does not seem
unreasonable. The situation should in fact be improved
since the new carport will be open on the front and sides
allowing for better passage of air and light and more ready
access in case of an emergency. Staff's concern lies with
the proposed 0 foot side yard. The house on the adjacent
property has only a 1.2-1.4 foot setback from the common
side property line. Allowing the applicant to construct a
structure any closer than the current 3.2 foot side yard
greatly increases the possibility of fire spreading from one
property onto the other. Additionally, the plan submitted
to staff shows the roof of the proposed carport pitching to
the sides, causing water to run-off onto the adjacent
property.
Staff has consistently taken a position of opposition to
0 foot side yard setback proposals. Staff feels that
position is strengthened in this case by the presence of the
neighboring house.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral to the December 18, 2000 meeting. The applicant had
indicated a desire to work with his architect to address concerns
raised by'staff. The request for deferral was received on the
morning of November 27, 2000.
A motion was made waive the Board's Bylaws to accept the
applicant's late request for deferral. The motion was approved
by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the December 18, 2000 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
2