Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7637 Staff AnalysisSEPTEMBER 27, 2004 TLA 1061 WTI File No.: Z-7637 Owner: David Hall Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a deck addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Condominiums Proposed Use of Property: Condominiums STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by two (2), two-story brick and frame duplex/condominium structures. One (1) of the duplex/condo structures faces Kavanaugh Blvd., with the other fronting on Louise Street. A one -car wide driveway from Louise Street serves as access to the property. There is a one-story frame garage structure located in the rear yard, at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed a 12 foot by 18 foot wood deck structure at the east end of the northernmost duplex/condo structure (facing Kavanaugh Blvd.). The northeast corner of the deck structure is located on the side (east) property line. The southeast corner of the deck extends across the side (east) property line by approximately two (2) feet. There is another multi -unit condominium type structure located SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A ICON'T. on the lot immediately to the east. The floor of the new deck structure is approximately 10 feet above grade, as the property slopes downward from Kavanaugh Blvd. The deck is located between 12 feet and 15 feet back from the front (north) property line. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-3 zoning. Section 36-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the existing deck with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not feel that the requested variances are reasonable. Staff typically does not support zero (0) side setbacks for residential structures. Additionally, staff does not have the authority.to recommend approval of nor does the Board of Adjustment have the authority to approve a structure which crosses a property line and extends into another property ownership. Given the fact that a driveway exists on the adjacent property to the east, between the deck and the adjacent condominium building, staff could support a minimum two (2) foot side yard setback for the deck structure. If the deck were moved back two (2) feet from the side property line, staff would also support the reduced front setback. As noted earlier, the deck is approximately 10 feet above grade. This should allow for proper maintenance of the yard area under and beside the deck structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A CONT. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 26, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. Based on the fact that only three (3) Board members were present, the Board offered a deferral to the applicant. Mr. Hall requested to defer the application to the August 30, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the August 30, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 30, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. David Hall addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained why the deck needed to stay as is, with no alterations. He noted that the neighbors (condo owners) immediately to the east had signed an agreement to provide an easement for maintenance of the deck structure. He noted that the neighbors had no problem leaving the deck as constructed. He stated that he could file the easement deed within 30 days. Chairman Gray asked who the property owners to the east were. Mr. Hall explained that there were eight (8) condo owners. There was a brief discussion of the deck construction with respect to the side property line. Mr. Hall noted that he had professional help with the deck construction who advised him that the deck was ok and needed no building permit. There was further discussion of the deck's relation to the driveway on the property to the east. Vice -Chairman Francis expressed concern with approving a zero side setback. He noted that he could support a two (2) foot side setback. There was additional discussion of the setback issue. Mr. Hall noted that it would be difficult to reduce the size of the deck, and discussed. Chairman Gray noted that he could support a one (1) to two (2) foot side setback. Terry Burruss asked if a replat could be done to move the side property line. Staff noted that replats had been done in similar situations in the past. There 3 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. was discussion regarding a possible replat of the property and the issue of deferring the item to allow Mr. Hall time to explore that possibility. Mr. Hall requested to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the September 27, 2004 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item, noting that the item was deferred from the August meeting to allow Mr. Hall time to explore the possibility of replatting the property to move the east side property line. David Hall addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the property owners to the east were agreeable to the replat. He explained that the property owner to the east, being a condo association, had to re -write its bylaws in order to do the replat and sell a sliver of the property. He stated he hoped to close on the property within 30 days. The issue of the replat was briefly discussed. Staff noted that the side property line could be adjusted to go around the deck structure and not the entire depth of the property. Staff noted that the side property line should be adjusted to provide a minimum two (2) foot setback at any point. Staff recommended approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions. 1. A replat must be completed within 60 days to adjust the east side property line, resulting in a minimum 2 foot setback from the deck structure at any point. 2. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. The deck structure must be reduced in size to provide a minimum 2 foot setback (at any point) from the existing east side property line. A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved. rd FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z-7637 Owner/Applicant: David Hall Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested for a previously approved variance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Condominiums Proposed Use of Property: Condominiums STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: On September 27, 2004 the Board of Adjustment approved front and side setback variances associated with a deck structure at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. The 12 foot by 18 foot deck structure was constructed on the east end of the northernmost condo building on the property. The deck's northeast corner is located on the side (east) property line, with the southeast corner extending across the side property line by approximately two (2) feet. The deck is located 12 to 15 feet back from the front (north) property line. The Board of Adjustment approved the variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A replat must be completed within 60 days to adjust the east side property line, resulting in a minimum 2 foot setback from the deck structure at any point. 2. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 f CON'T. XV The deck structure must be reduced in size to provide a minimum 2 foot setback (at any point) from the existing east side property line. Since the approval date, the applicant has been working with the property owners to the east on replatting the properties (adjusting the dividing side property line). The property to the east is a condo development with several property owners. The applicant has experienced difficulty in reaching all of the property owners as of this date. Staff, through the enforcement process, was able to grant the applicant some additional time to complete the replat process. However, the applicant is in need of additional time, and is requesting 60 more days to complete the replat. Staff recommends approval of the 60 day time extension. Staff feels that this will allow adequate time for the applicant to complete the replat of the properties. Staff knows of no objectors regarding this issue. None were present at the public hearing last September. Therefore, the extension should create no hardship for any parties involved. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the time extension to April 28, 2005. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. K