HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7574 Staff AnalysisFebruary 23, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6
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-7574
Ahmed Darwish
5019 Woodlawn Drive
Lot 5, Block 27, Pulaski Heights Addition
5W
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with reduced setbacks.
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential with
nonconforming C-3 zoning status for a
plumbing business
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5019 Woodlawn Drive is occupied by a one-
story frame single family structure. There is a one -car driveway from
Woodlawn Drive which serves as access. There is also vehicular access
from the alley along the south property line. There is a single -car
detached garage and a two -car carport structure in the rear yard at the
southeast corner of the property.
The property at 5019 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-2, with a nonconforming
C-3 zoning status. Current City records show that a plumbing business
(Taylor Plumbing) was located on the property as of January 17, 2003.
February 23, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 foot by 36 foot building
addition on the rear of the residential structure. The addition will be
attached to the 12 foot by 24 foot garage structure located at the
southeast corner of the property. The proposed addition will maintain the
existing 4.3 foot side setback along the west property line. The addition
will be located 25 feet from the rear property line and nine (9) feet from
the east side property line. The existing accessory garage structure is
located six (6) feet from the rear property line and two (2) feet from the
east side property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum
side yard setbacks of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section
36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for
principal structures. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance standards to allow the building addition.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
proposed addition will not be out of character with other structures in this
general area. As noted earlier, the proposed addition will maintain the
same 4.3 foot side setback (west) as the existing house. The rear and
east side setbacks associated with the proposed addition conform to
ordinance standards. However, when the principal structure is connected
to the accessory structure, the accessory structure is required to meet the
minimum setbacks of a principal structure. Therefore, side and rear yard
setback variances for the existing garage structure are needed. No
changes are proposed for the garage structure, other than connecting it to
the principal structure. Staff feels that the proposed building addition will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
Staff 's support is based on the fact that the carport structure which is
currently attached to the garage structure will be removed from the
property, and that the principal structure will be used as a single family
residence only. If the nonconforming commercial use of the property is
proposed to continue, a rezoning of the property will be required to allow
the building expansion.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The carport structure located in the rear yard must be removed from
the property.
2
February 23, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.)
2. The property must be used as a single family residence only. No
commercial use, other than an approvable home occupation, will be
allowed.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 23, 2004)
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.
3