HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7414 Staff AnalysisAugust 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: C
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 Analvsis:
Z-7414
Belinda Avery
3719 West 11 th Street
Lots 4 and 5, Block 16, Forest Hill Addition
R-3
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-255 to allow an
awning (covered patio) addition with a
reduced front yard setback.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-3 zoned property at 3719 West 11th Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family structure. There is a single car
driveway from West 11th Street which serves as access. A nonconforming
metal carport structure which has existed a number of ears covers the
driveway, and extends into the right-cf-way of West 11 " Street by
approximately 1.3 feet. The carport is located at the northeast corner of
the residence, and appears to be attached to the main structure.
The applicant recently constructed a 16 foot by 16 foot awning (covered
patio) addition on the east side of the metal carport structure. A concrete
slab under the structure was recently poured. The awning is wood
construction with a metal roof. There is lattice enclosing the east and
August 25, 2003
Item No.: C (Cont.
west sides of the structure, with lattice on a portion of the north side. The
applicant has stated that she would like to add lattice to the remainder of
the north side.
The recently constructed awning follows the same front line as the
existing metal carport structure. Therefore, the awning is located 1 —1.3
feet into the right-of-way of West 11`" Street. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet from
the front property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance
from this ordinance requirement for the awning (patio cover) structure.
Staff does not support the requested front yard setback variance. Staff
views the encroachment as unnecessary. The awning (patio cover)
extends onto a vacant lot (46 feet by 130 feet) which contains ample
space for construction of this type of structure with conformance to the
required setbacks. Staff suggests that the applicant consider locating this
structure on the east side of the residential structure (attached and at
least 25 feet back from the front property line). Staff feels that this could
be done with much of the building materials being re -used.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested front yard setback variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003)
The applicant was present. Staff noted that a variance was needed for the
height of a new fence along the east property line, and that the variance had not
yet been requested. Staff suggested deferral of the application to the July 28,
2003 agenda to allow the applicant time to revise the application and request a
fence height variance.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003
agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the
application be deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 25,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
The Board noted that this would be the final deferral for this item.
K
August 25, 2003
Item No.: C (Cont.
STAFF UPDATE -
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff on August 1, 2003. The
applicant has added the request to allow an existing fence along the front
property line and a portion of the side (east) property line which exceeds four (4)
feet in height. Section 36-516(e)(1)a, of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a
maximum fence height of four (4) feet within the front 25 feet of this lot. The
existing chainlink fence is approximately five (5) feet in height along the north
(front) property line and six (6) feet in height along the east (side) property line.
Staff supports the requested fence variance. Staff feels that the existing fence
heights will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area
as long as the fence remains chain link and not changed to on opaque structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003)
Victoria Avery was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of
the proposed setback variance, and approval of the requested fence variance.
Victoria Avery addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that
Brenda Avery, the property owner, had a disabled son who used the patio
structure for recreation. She briefly discussed the patio cover structure. She
noted that Brenda Avery needed the structure and explained.
Chairman Ruck noted that he could not support the variance just because the
structure was constructed as a mistake. He stated that the structure was not
suitable with the neighborhood.
Fred Gray expressed concern with having people use the structure with its close
proximity to a street right-of-way. He noted that he would have a hard time
supporting the variance. The issue was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the setback variance, as filed. The motion failed
by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The setback variance was denied.
There was a second motion to approve the fence height variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The fence is to remain chain-link only, and not replaced with an opaque
fence.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence.
3. A franchise permit must be obtained for the portion of the fence located in the
public right-of-way.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The fence height
variance was approved.
KI