HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7460 Staff AnalysisAugust 25, 2003
ITEM NO.- 13
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7460
Alexandra Ifrah
5124 "P" Street
Lot 19, Block 3, McGehee Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow
additions with reduced side and rear yard
setbacks.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5124 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story
frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from "P"
Street which serves as access. An alley right-of-way is located along the
north property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a 34.5 foot by 39.5 foot building
addition on the north side of the existing house. The addition will contain
a new den, kitchen and master bedroom with bath. An uncovered,
unenclosed deck with steps will be constructed on the north side of the
room addition. The deck will be located 21 feet from the rear (north)
property line, with the steps being 19 feet from the rear line.
August 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 [Cont.
The applicant also proposes to construct a 10 foot — 8 inch by 23 foot
carport addition along the west side of the house, covering a portion of the
existing driveway. The carport structure will be located one (1) foot from
the west (side) property line.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum
side yard setback of 5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting variances to allow the 19 foot rear yard setback for the
deck/steps, and the one (1) foot side yard setback for the proposed
carport. The applicant has obtained a letter from the property owner
immediately to the west, expressing no objection to the requested one (1)
foot side setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow a reduced rear yard
setback. If the deck remains uncovered and unenclosed, the structure
should have a minimum impact on the adjacent properties. The main
building addition on the rear of the house exceeds all of the required
setbacks.
Staff does not support the requested variance to allow a one (1) foot side
yard setback for the proposed carport structure. Staff believes that even if
the structure is unenclosed, there will not be adequate room to construct
and maintain the structure without encroaching onto the property to the
west. There is a two (2) foot wide flower bed along the west side of the
house. If the applicant could extend the driveway into this area and cut
the width of the proposed carport to 8 feet — 8 inches, thereby providing a
three (3) foot side yard setback, staff could support the setback variance.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
Staff recommends denial of the side yard setback variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN
(AUGUST 25, 2003)
Alexandra Ifrah was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of
2
August 25, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.)
approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. Staff recommended
denial of the requested side yard setback variance associated with the proposed
carport structure.
Alexandra Ifrah addressed the Board in support of the application. She
described the proposed construction. She noted that reducing the width of the
carport structure would make it very difficult to open the car doors next to the
house. She stated that her contractor informed her that the carport structure
could be constructed and maintained without encroaching onto the property to
the west. She discussed the maintenance easement deed which the property
owner to the west had signed. She noted that the deed would run with the land
and only terminate if the carport were closed in.
Fred Gray asked about the height of the existing fence along the west property
line. Ms. Ifrah stated that the fence was six (6) feet in height. She noted that
there would be space between the fence and the roof of the carport structure,
and that it would not have the appearance of being closed in.
There was a motion to approve the rear yard setback variance, subject to the
conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved.
There was a second motion to approve the side yard setback variance, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west
sides.
2. The maintenance easement must run with the property and be properly
recorded.
3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the west.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was
approved.
K