Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8633 Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 28, 2011 Tfd►T%_INM0XW- File No.: Z-8633 Owner/Applicant: Greer H. Lile, Jr. Address: 1707 Lilac Circle Description: East side of Lilac Circle, South of Lilac Terrace Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that driveways as constructed within the front yard area of the residential property exceed the maximum width allowed by Section 36-513. 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 The R-3 zoned property at 1707 Lilac Circle is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide carport located on the north end of the residence, accessed by a 10 foot wide concrete driveway (original) at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed two (2) additional driveways from Lilac Circle for vehicular parking. Approximately 2.5 feet south of the original 10 foot wide driveway is a new 23.5 foot wide drive, with parking for three (3) vehicles. Approximately 9 feet south of that drive is a new driveway with a width of 16.75 feet and parking for two (2) vehicles. The original (northernmost) 10 foot wide drive allows the parking of three (3) vehicles in conjunction with the carport. The applicant has noted that the two (2) new driveways were constructed between February and May 15, 2010. Ordinance No. 20,231 which regulates the parking of motor vehicles in the front yards of residences was passed by the City Board of Directors on March 2, 2010 and went into effect on June 1, 2010. The ordinance allows a maximum driveway width of 20 feet in addition to a 20 foot by 20 foot "flagpole" area for vehicular parking or maneuvering. The ordinance, as noted in paragraph (f), creates no nonconforming situations. On November 17, 2010 the City's Housing and Neighborhood Programs department issued a notice to comply to the property owner, based on the fact that an excessive amount of the front yard area had been paved/concreted for motor vehicular parking. The notice granted seven (7) days to comply or file an administrative appeal. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T. On November 23, 2010 Greer H. Lile, Jr. submitted an administrative appeal request to staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development. After thorough review, a letter was sent to Mr. Lile on December 14, 2010 denying the administrative appeal, requiring Mr. Lile to remove the center/widest driveway/parking pad on the site. During a site visit for the appeal request staff observed eight (8) vehicles parked in the front yard and carport of the residence. The administrative appeal was denied for the following reasons: • The number and width of driveways/parking pads on the site exceeds the intent of the ordinance. The number of vehicles parked on the site exceeds the intent of the ordinance. • There is ample space on the site to park five (5) vehicles without utilizing the center/widest driveway/parking pad. Five (5) parking spaces is ample to serve any single family residence. Mr. Lile is now appealing staff's denial of his administrative appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mr. Lile's parking arrangement (driveways, parking pads, number of vehicles, etc.) meets the intent of Ordinance No. 20,231 and can continue. Additional/supplemental information (copy of ordinance, photos and letters) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Greer H. Lile, Jr. was present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. Greer H. Lile, Jr. addressed the Board in support of the appeal request. He discussed when the driveways were constructed with respect to the parking in yards ordinance. He noted that a city inspector had been to the property prior to adoption of the ordinance. He noted that he had no idea of how the ordinance was going to work. He stated that he should be able to keep the driveways because they were constructed prior to the ordinance. There was discussion of the parking in yards ordinance with respect to non -conforming situations. The issue was discussed. Staff noted that the center driveway needed to be removed. Mr. Lile stated that many properties in the city did not conform with the ordinance with respect to driveway width and pavement in front yard areas. The issue was discussed. Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance allowance for driveway width and parking area. There was discussion of the intent of the ordinance and what needed to be done FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T to make Mr. Lile's property comply. Mr. Lile noted that the City required the center driveway be removed. Staff explained that a strip of concrete (approximately four (4) feet wide) along the street, within the right-of-way, could be removed, with the remaining concrete pad used as a patio and not for parking cars. This issue was discussed further. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the construction of driveways at 1707 Lilac Circle meets the intent of Ordinance No. 20,231 (parking in yards ordinance). The motion -failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied.