Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8000 Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-8000 Owner: Chris and Nancy deBin Address: 5327 Southwood Road Description: Lot 221, Prospect Terrace #3 Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a porch/ramp addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5327 Southwood Road is occupied by a two-story rock and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Southwood Road which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to back (north to south). There is an inground pool in the rear yard. There is a short retaining wall along the west side of the driveway. The applicant proposes to extend the retaining wall approximately 22.8 feet to the south along the west side of the house. The first seven (7) feet of the wall will allow for the extension of the elevated porch (uncovered) on the west side of the house. From that point the wall will angle down, creating a concrete ramp to the existing sidewalk along the west side of the house. The extended porch and ramp will take the place of existing concrete steps and allow the FEBRUARY 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 CON'T. applicant to have easier access to the front yard with yard maintenance equipment. The existing wall and porch/ramp extension will be located 1.6 feet from the side (west) property line. The existing driveway will also be widened to the existing retaining wall. The extended porch section will be six (6) to seven (7) feet above grade. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of six (6) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the porch extension and ramp to have a reduced side setback of 1.6 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as relatively minor. As per ordinance requirements, the applicant could construct a six (6) foot high fence or wall along the west side property line of this R-2 zoned lot. Staff believes the proposed masonry wall with elevated porch and ramp will have no more of a visual impact on the adjacent property than a six (6) to seven (7) foot high masonry wall or fence. The applicant has noted that landscaping will be planted within the 1.6 foot setback area. Staff believes the proposed porch exterior with ramp will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the elevated porch and ramp area remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 27, 2006) Chris deBin was present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Chris deBin addressed the Board in support of the application. He briefly described the project, noting that the proposed wall would align with the existing restraining wall along the west property line. Cynthia Sloan-Solares spoke in opposition. She stated that her mother owned the property immediately to the west. She expressed concern with the visual impact and sight -distance associated with the proposed wall. She stated that the proposed construction was too intense. Staff noted that there would be no sight -distance problem given the fact that there would be no additional vertical wall between the front of the house and the street. 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 27, 2006 CON'T.) Mr. deBin noted that all construction would take place on his side of the property line. Antonio Solares also addressed the Board in opposition. He presented photos to the Board and discussed. There was a brief discussion of the photos and existing retaining wall and steps. In response to a concern raised by Mr. Solares, Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, suggested a condition that there be no additional fence/wall constructed along the west property line. Staff suggested that the condition be no additional fence/wall from the southwest corner of the house to the front property line, along the west property line. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. deBin stated that he would agree not to construct an additional fence/wall from the base of the proposed ramp structure north to the front property line. There was brief additional discussion. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff, with the following additional conditions: ■ No additional fence or wall will be constructed along the west property line from the base of the ramp to the front (north) property line (approximately 45 linear feet). The motion was passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved with the additional condition. K