Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8844 Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 25, 2013 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8844 Owner/Applicant: Kellye D. Neal Address: 1323 S. Tyler Street Description: Lot 7, Block 8, Oak Forest Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a deck addition with a reduced side 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: No Comment. B. Building Codes Issues: The deck construction does not comply with the 2006 Building Codes requirements. If approved, structural alterations must be completed to meet code requirements. Contact Arnold Coleman at 371-4833 for details. C. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 1323 S. Tyler Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner of S. Tyler Street and W. 14th Street. An alley right-of-way is located along the rear (east) property line. A small storage building is located at the southeast corner of the lot. The property slopes downward from front to back (west to east). A six (6) foot high wrought iron fence encloses the rear yard area. The applicant recently constructed a wood deck along the north side of the residence. The deck runs the entire length of the house with landings/stairs leading down to the carport structure. A portion of the deck is covered, with the uncovered portion extending to the north side property line. A six (6) foot high fence is located on top of the deck structure. The front (west) edge of the deck is FEBRUARY 25, 2013 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. approximately 14 inches above grade, with the northeast corner of the deck being three (3) to 3.5 feet above grade. The fence on top of the deck has a height ranging from six (6) feet at the northwest corner of the deck to approximately eight (8) feet at the deck's northeast corner, as viewed from the neighboring property to the north. The fence has a consistent height of six (6) feet as viewed from the newly constructed deck. A building permit was obtained for only the covered deck portion of the overall project. Please see attached site plan sketch and photos for additional information. Section 36-255(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the deck construction with a reduced side setback. Staff is not supportive of the requested side setback variance. Staff cannot support the deck construction extending to the north side property line. Staff feels that the deck structure should be located at least 18 inches back from the north side property line. This will allow a minimal area for the deck and yard to be maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the north. Additionally, a portion of the deck framing outside the fenced portion is unfinished and, in staffs opinion, creates an eyesore for the property owner immediately to the north. Staff believes that the deck being moved back to at least 18 inches from the north side property line, and finished to meet building codes requirements, is a reasonable compromise in this situation. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (February 25, 2013) Doyle Reeves and Kellye Neal were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Doyle Reeves addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the retaining wall along the north property line created a water problem for Ms. Neal's property. He explained that the deck construction was done to create a usable outdoor area due to the water problem. He noted that the deck did not worsen the water issue. Vice -Chairman Smith questioned how the deck related to the water issue. Mr. Reeves explained that the deck created an outdoor space where the water problem existed. There was a brief discussion of how the deck was constructed to its current size and the grade of the property. Mr. Reeves noted that filling the low area would cause water damage to Ms. Neal's house. FEBRUARY 25, 2013 .: 3 (CON'T. Chairman Yates asked if a contractor was used for the deck construction. Ms. Neal stated that a contractor was used. Chairman Yates asked if the deck was constructed to City code. Mr. Reeves stated that he did not know. Chairman Yates explained staffs recommendation and questioned if the deck could be reduced by 18 inches without taking the entire deck down. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Reeves stated that cutting 18 inches off the deck would be very expensive. Rajesh Mehta asked if the deck could be reduced in size. Mr. Reeves noted that it could be done. The deck construction was discussed further. Robert Winchester asked about the deck's foundation. Mr. Reeves stated that the deck was supported by 4x4's and 6x6's in concrete. Brad Wingfield asked if there was enough clearance under the deck to move the supports back 18 inches. This issue was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Smith questioned staff about ordinance allowances with respect to finished grade. The issue was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Smith asked if the Board could support the deck construction if the north side of the deck looked like a finished fence. This issue was discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Mr. Reeves amended the application stating that a finished fence face will be provided on the north side of the fence on top of the deck and that the lower portion of the deck (below the fence) would have a finished appearance to the ground. The Board did not ask staffs opinion of the applicant's amendment and staff did not change its recommendation. There was a motion to approve the side setback variance, as amended by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 2 nays and 0 absent. The amended application was approved. Staff noted for the record that the approved side setback variance did not endorse allowing the applicant to encroach onto the adjacent property to the north to do the construction.