Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8594 Staff AnalysisSEPTEMBER 27, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8594 Owner: Ronald E. and Carol A. Godsey Living Trust Applicant: Scott Greenwood Address: 4809 Gooch Drive Description: North end of Gooch Drive Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow construction of a new residence with reduced setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Measures to control the increase in stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property. B. Staff Analvsis: The R-2 zoned property at 4809 Gooch Drive is currently an undeveloped, grass - covered lot. The lot is located at the north end of Gooch Drive. Gooch Drive is a ten (10) to twelve (12) foot wide paved roadway with no curbs and gutter. It runs along the west property line of this lot and curves through the north portion of the lot and onto the lot immediately to the east, where it dead -ends into the Heatherbrae Subdivision. An eastern portion of Gooch Drive, which extended into the Heatherbrae Subdivision, was abandoned in 2004 by Ordinance No. 19,158. There is a 20 foot wide access easement following essentially the same alignment through the lot, but only a small portion of the paved roadway is located within the easement. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story brick and frame single family residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will be located 30 feet to 97 feet back from all property lines. However, given the fact that Gooch Drive was treated as a right-of-way in the past, staff is considering the setbacks from the roadway and easement. Also, given the lot width -to -depth SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 ITEM NO.: 3 (CCN'T. C measurements and the orientation of the adjacent home to the east, staff is viewing the north property line as the front property line for the sake of setback measurements. The proposed residence will be setback 97 feet from the north (front) property line, two (2) to 62 feet back from the roadway easement, and 38 to 70 feet back from the existing roadway pavement. The structure will be set back 42 feet from the west side property line, two (2) to 14 feet back from the roadway easement, and 28 to 40 feet back from the existing roadway pavement. The home will have setbacks of 39 feet from the rear (south) property line and 30 feet from the east side property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front building setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow reduced front and side setbacks from the existing roadway easement. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. Although it appears that the Gooch Drive roadway/easement is not a right-of-way, there is some evidence that it has been treated as such in the past. Staff has chosen to err on the side of caution with the issue and require the variances, primarily to avoid any future confusion with respect to the roadway easement. Staff views the setback variances as very minor, non -issues. As noted previously, the home will set back 30 to 97 feet from all property lines, and 28 to 70 feet back from the existing paved roadway. A very small portion of the northwest corner of the residence (mostly porch area) is within the setbacks as measured from the roadway easement. Staff believes the new single family residence, as sited on the property, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The owner of this lot also owns the lot/house immediately to the east, the last lot that Gooch Drives serves. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 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 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position.