Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8521-A Staff AnalysisJUNE 28, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8521-A Owner: Brian and Caren Norris Applicant: Caren Norris Address: 2112 Country Club Lane Description: Lot 5 and part of Lot 4, Block 3, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a new residence with a height which exceeds the maximum allowed. 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 2112 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two-story (with finished basement) single family residence which is in the process of being constructed (framing). There will be a driveway along the south side of the residence leading to a carport on the rear of the residence. There is a 10 foot alley along the rear (west) property line. The property slopes downward from front to back (east to west) and side to side (north to south). Because of the slope of the property, the residence has the appearance of a two-story structure as viewed from the front (east) and north side. It has the appearance of a three-story structure as viewed from the rear (west) and south side. On February 22, 2010 the Board of Adjustment granted rear and side yard setback variances for this residential structure. The applicant is now back before the Board to request one (1) additional variance for which a need was not known at the time of the previous Board of Adjustment action. Section 36-254(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet for structures in the R-2 zoning district. According to the ordinance definition of building height, it is measured from the lowest finished floor JUNE 28, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T_ level to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable or hip roof. Because the basement level of this residence will be finished (game room, bathroom etc.), the height of the structure measures approximately 43 feet. As noted previously, this is primarily as viewed from the rear and south side. The height as measured is for the main portion of the residential structure and does not include the carport section as the rear of the structure which is well under the maximum height allowance. If the basement level of the residence were not finished space, the building height measurement would be approximately 34 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new single family residence with a height of approximately 43 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested height variance. The fact that this structure has a finished basement level is the only reason that the building height measurement does not comply with ordinance standards. A portion of the finished basement will be below the finished grade of the yard area. As noted previously, if the basement level was not finished space, the building height measurement would be approximately 34 feet and comply with the ordinance. Additionally, the overall height of this residence, as measured from the finished grade of the yard area to the peak of the roof, will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are other residences within one (1) to two (2) blocks of this residence which have overall heights similar, and possibly greater, than this residence. The changing slopes from property to property within this area of the neighborhood play a major role in how the overall building heights are viewed, without respect to the ordinance definition of height. Staff believes that the building height as being constructed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.