HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7330 Staff AnalysisMarch 31, 2003
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-7330
Owner: James E. Weaver
Address: 3209 Katherine Street
Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 24, John
Barrow Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory carport structure with reduced
separation and front setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single family residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3209 Katherine Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single car
driveway from Katherine Street which serves as access. A 12 foot by 20
foot metal carport structure covers a portion of the driveway.
The metal carport structure existed on the site when the current owner
purchased the property in April 1997. The structure is located
approximately 14 feet back from the front property line and flush against
the front wall of the single family house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures in R-2
zoning be located at least 60 feet from a front property line. Section
March 31, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.
36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from
principal structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting variances from these ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of 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 driveway.
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 and building separation associated with the accessory
carport structure, subject to the following conditions:
1. The variances be approved for the property owner, James E. Weaver
and his son, Reginald Weaver, only.
2. If the property is sold or the Weavers vacate 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: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
March 31, 2003
Item No.: A
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 27, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the February 24, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 24,
2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 24, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had
not submitted the required proof of notification to property owners within 200 feet
of the property.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31,
2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 31, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
W