Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8439 Staff AnalysisMARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8439 Russ Harrington Burt Taggart 2 Duclair Court Lot 1 R,Block 3, Chenal Valley Addition W Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear 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: Measures to control the increase in stormwater drainage should be implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the increase in impervious area. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2 Duclair Court is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. The property is located on the northwest corner of Duclair Court and Chenal Valley Drive. There is an access drive within an access easement along the rear (west) property line. There is a two -car wide driveway from the access drive to a garage on the west side (rear) of the residence. The access easement is 14 feet wide at the rear of this lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story addition to the rear (west side) of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be located 15 feet back from the rear (west) property line, 12 feet from the south side property line and approximately 29 feet from the north side property line. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO-- 5 (CON'T. The applicant notes that the addition will create a first floor bedroom and bathroom for the elderly parents of the property owner who are unable to use the staircase within the existing residence. The room addition will be approximately 450 square feet in area. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building addition with a reduced rear setback of 15 feet. All other setbacks will comply with ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The residence with addition will not be out of character with other lots within this subdivision with respect to setbacks from access drives and building massing. The residence immediately to the west is located only a foot or two from the access drive (side yard relation). The requested addition with reduced rear setback will have a rear yard relation to the residence to the west across the access drive. The proposed building addition should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the overall neighborhood. This subdivision is likely covered by an active bill of assurance which may address setback and architectural review issues. The applicant needs to be aware of this and should review the document for compliance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the following conditions. 1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) Burt Taggart was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Taggart made no additional comments. Scott Smith asked Mr. Taggart why the variance was needed. Mr. Taggart explained the current floor plan of the house. He explained that the design was to develop a new bedroom with the appearance of a stand-alone structure. He also explained that the roofline of the existing house dictated the design of the proposed addition. Mr. Smith asked why the enclosed connector was needed. Mr. Taggart noted that with the existing roofline of the house, the addition could not be located much closer MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T. to the existing structure. Dana Carney, City staff, noted that the single family developments in Chenal were not allowed accessory structures. Mr. Smith asked what the proposed rear setback was. Mr. Taggart noted that it was 15 feet and explained. He also noted that the adjacent property owners were in support of the proposed addition. He noted that the Public Works requirement would be complied with. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved.