Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8449 Staff AnalysisMAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Alberto Alcazar 6515 Sandpiper Drive Lot 121, Cardinal Heights Addition R-2 Variance Requested: A variances is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear yard 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: 1. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the increased impervious area. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 6515 Sandpiper Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Sandpiper Drive at the northeast corner of the lot. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The property owner recently began construction of building addition on the rear (south side) of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The existing roof line was extended to the south, toward the rear property line, approximately 28 feet. The room addition is 20.8 feet by 28 feet in area and constructed over an existing concrete patio area. The floor of the addition is approximately three (3) feet above grade. The addition is located approximately 12 feet back from the rear (south) property line. The construction was initiated without a building permit, and the City recently issued a "stop -work order" to the property owner. MAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. 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 room addition with a reduced rear setback. The applicant has described the addition as a "covered patio". However, after inspection of the property, staff views it as a room addition. The east, west and south walls contain studs at approximately 16 inch centers, with some exterior siding being installed prior to the stop -work order. Staff does not support the rear yard variance, as requested. Although the lot has a relatively shallow depth, staff feels that the enclosed addition extends too close to the rear property line and neighboring house to the south, and is not characteristic of the rear setbacks for the residences in this area. Staff's opposition is based on the fact that the addition is enclosed. If the applicant were willing to make that portion of the addition which extends into the 25 foot rear setback completely unenclosed (covered deck only), staff could support the rear setback variance. Approximately the rear (south) 13 feet of the addition extends into the rear 25 feet of the lot. If this rear portion were maintained as an open deck, with support poles and no siding, staff believes it would have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The residence immediately to the west has a nonconforming covered deck (unenclosed) which extends into the rear yard area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 27, 2009) Alberto Alcazar and Zugey Lopez were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial, as filed. Ms. Lopez addressed the Board in support of the application. She described the rear addition as a patio area. James Van Dover referenced the wall studs on all walls, which represented closed walls. Ms. Lopez explained that the top half of the walls would be screened in and not enclosed. This issue was discussed further. There was a motion to defer the application to the May 18, 2009 Agenda so that staff and the applicant could meet and determine exactly what the proposed addition involved. There was additional discussion related to the structure being screened in. Scott Smith noted that he did not want this case to set precedence. Deborah Weldon, City Attorney, explained that no case sets a precedence for future cases. The issue was discussed. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to defer to May 18, 2009. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. MAY 18, 2009 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 18, 2009) Alberto Alcazar and Zugey Lopez were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that a meeting was held between staff and Mr. Alcazar at 6515 Sandpiper Drive. Staff explained that Mr. Alcazar had agreed to remove approximately two-thirds of the studs associated with the porch addition to give the addition a more open look. Staff noted that the siding and screen wire would remain as is on the addition. Staff recommended approval of the application, with the revision to remove the excess studs, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A of the staff report. Alberto Alcazar and Zugey Lopez addressed the Board in support of the application. They presented photos of the addition to the Board. Scott Smith asked why there was a need to encroach into the minimum rear setback. He noted that there was space to build on the west side of the proposed addition. Mr. Alcazar explained that building out the existing house width was more desirable than widening the addition. He noted that the addition was for a play area for his children. There was a discussion of the type of addition and the height of the siding. Scott Smith explained that there needed to be a reason to support the reduced setback, such as topography or lot shape. The issue was discussed further. There was a discussion regarding removing all the siding from the addition. There was a motion to approve the application, as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The revised application was approved.