Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7288 Staff AnalysisOctober 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7288 Letha Marie Osborne 1617 S. Elm Street Lot 5, Block 8, Braddock's Addition R-3 A variance is requested from Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure with reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 1617 S. Elm Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is an existing two -car driveway from Elm Street. An existing 10 foot by 18 foot detached metal carport structure is located at the southwest corner of the property and covers a portion of the driveway. The carport structure is flush against (but not attached to) the front of the single family residence, and is located on the front (west) and side (south) property lines. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that an accessory structure be separated by at least six (6) feet from principal structure. Section 36=156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures, and Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a .variance from these standards. As noted previously, there is October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. no separation between the accessory carport structure and the principal structure, and the structure has no setback from the front or south side property lines. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure has been in place for years, with no complaints from neighbors. The City's enforcement staff observed the carport during a neighborhood inspection. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing concrete parking pad. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback, side yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Letha Marie Osborne, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Ms. Osborne vacates the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant recently revised the application by submitting an alternate carport plan. The alternate plan includes a permanent carport structure constructed and attached to the front of the existing residential structure. The structure would be approximately 18 feet by 23 feet and have a zero setback from the front and south side property lines. Section 36-255(d)(1) requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet and Section 26-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of 4 feet for this R-3 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these requirements for the alternate plan. Staff does not support the variances associated with the alternate plan. Although staff has no problems with, the existing metal carport structure and will continue to recommend approval of it as noted in paragraph C. of this report, staff will not support the requested variances associated with the proposed permanent carport structure. Staff feels that the zero setbacks as proposed with the permanent structure are out of character and not compatible with the other single family structures in this area. Staff Recommendation (Alternate Plan): Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from Section 36-255 as associated with the alternate plan for a permanent carport structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Letha Marie Osborne was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff described the requested variances, recommending approval (paragraph C. of this report) of the variances associated with the existing metal carport structure, and denial of the variances associated with an alternate plan for a permanent carport addition. Letha Marie Osborne addressed the Board in support of the application. Chairman Ruck asked if there was a particular design for the proposed permanent carport addition. Ms. Osborne gave a brief description, noting that the roof would be slightly slanted. She noted that the existing metal carport would be removed with construction of the permanent structure. Vice -Chairman Gray asked when the metal carport was installed. Ms. Osborne noted that it was installed six (6) years ago. Gary Langlais asked if there were plans (drawings) for the proposed permanent carport structure. Ms. Obsorne noted that the were none at this time. 3 October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the neighbors had a problem with the existing metal carport. Ms. Osborne stated that none of the neighbors were opposed to the structure. She noted that most neighbors didn't even know the structure was there. There was a motion to approve the variances from Section 36-156 associated with the existing metal carport structure, as recommended by staff. There was a brief discussion of the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the variances from Section 36-254 associated with the proposed permanent carport structure, as filed. There was a brief discussion of this motion. The second motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. 4