HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7056 Staff AnalysisJune 25, 2001
Item No.: 15
File No.
Owner:
Address•
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Proper
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis•
Z-7056
Mary Puckett Holt
344 Crystal Court
Lot 19, Block 1, Crystal Court
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area coverage provisions of Section
36-156.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 344 Crystal Court is
currently occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-
family residence. The new owner is a recent retiree of the
Dallas School System who is moving to the site from
Richardson, Texas. She proposes to construct a one-story 22
feet by 24 feet accessory building in the rear yard. The
structure will contain a garage, storage space and a wood
working (hobby) studio. Due to the unusual shape of the
property, the structure will occupy more than 30% of the
required yard.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. This "pie -
shaped" lot has very little rear yard area, as defined by
the code. The maximum structure permitted by the code could
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 15 (Cont.)
not exceed 187 square feet. With the setbacks proposed by
the applicant, approximately 352 square feet of the proposed
structure are located in the required rear yard. This
constitutes an approximate coverage of 56%. The proposed
setbacks exceed ordinance requirements. The structure is
not out of character with development in the area and, as
such, should have no impact on other properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage
variance subject to the structure being constructed with the
setbacks from the side and rear property lines as shown on
the site plan submitted with this application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the condition 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 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2