HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7439 Staff AnalysisJuly 28, 2003
ITEM NO.:
File No.: Z-7439
Owner: CRRO Development
Address: 5720 Hawthorne
Description: Lot 13, Forest Heights Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow
construction of a new single family
residence with a reduced rear yard setback.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5720 Hawthorne Street is currently
undeveloped. A foundation for a new house is being constructed. The
proposed house will have a height of two (2) stories, with a two -car garage
accessed from "V" Street to the north. The house and garage will be
connected by way of a second floor extension over a courtyard area.
Based on this second floor connection, the garage is considered part of
the principal structure, and not an accessory structure. The north wall of
the garage will be located approximately 8.7 feet from the rear (north)
property line. This north wall will be located approximately 22 feet from
the edge of pavement for W" Street, which should allow adequate
maneuvering area behind the garage structure.
July 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
rear yard setback of 25 feet for this lot. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the reduced rear yard setback. All other
setbacks associated with the proposed structure conform to the ordinance
requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the
requested variance is reasonable. If the house and garage were not
connected by the second floor extension, but by way of a roof cover over
the courtyard (non -heated and cooled space), all setbacks would conform
to ordinance standards with no variances required. This is based on the
fact that the garage would be considered an accessory structure in that
scenario. Therefore, the massing of the structure will be the same with
the second floor connection into the garage structure, as with the
ordinance allowed scenario as described above. With that in mind, staff
feels that construction of the proposed single family structure will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. The proposed
lot coverage will not be out of character with other residential lots in this
neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, as filed_
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003)
Lisa Cornwell was present, representing the application. There were three (3)
persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval.
Lisa Cornwell addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that
the second floor connection would not change the look of the house.
Chairman Ruck asked if alternate house designs had been explored.
Ms. Cornwell stated that other designs eliminated rear yard space. This issue
was briefly discussed.
Fred Gray asked the need for the second floor connection. Ms. Cornwell stated
that it would be used to access the garage structure, but mainly it would allow
the second floor of the garage to be better utilized. There was additional
discussion of this item.
0
July 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont.
Chairman Ruck asked if the area above the garage could be used as an
apartment. Ms. Cornwell stated that it would be used as a workout room or a
children's playroom. She stated that there would be a bathroom and a wet bar.
Kathleen Oleson addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She
stated that there was no justification for the variance. She expressed concern
that the second floor of the garage structure would be used as an apartment.
She stated that the applicant was trying to over -develop the property.
Donna Darr also addressed the Board in opposition. She referred to other
properties in the area which were occupied by very large houses.
Louise Whittaker also spoke in opposition. She also expressed concern that the
second floor of the garage structure would be used as an apartment.
Ms. Cornwell stated that there will not be an apartment over the garage.
Andy Francis asked if there would be any 220 -volt outlets in the area over the
garage. Ms. Cornwell stated that she did not know. Mr. Francis stated that the
single family zoning of the property would not allow a second living unit. The
issue was briefly discussed.
Staff provided the Board with the Zoning Ordinance definition of "single family".
This issue was discussed further.
Fred Gray discussed the massing of structures in the general area. He noted
that denying the variance would not change the nature of the structure. He
stated that he would support the variance.
There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3