Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8917 Staff AnalysisMARCH 31, 2014 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8917 Owner/Applicant: Mitchell Burroughs Address: 13005 Grassy Drive Description: North side of Grassy Drive at Roble Drive Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-254 to allow an accessory building on a lot prior to construction of a principal dwelling. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Accessory Garage/Storage Structure Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 13005 Grassy Drive is occupied by a one-story metal garage/storage building which is in the process of being constructed. The property is located on the north side of Grassy Drive, west of Duvall Road. The metal accessory building is 30 feet by 70 feet in size, and is located within the north half of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The new accessory building conforms with all setback and coverage requirements. Section 36-254(d)(6) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures in the R-2 zoning district. According to Section 36-2, the definition of an accessory structure/building is as follows: "Accessory building or use means a building or use which: (1) Is located on the same zoning lot as the principal building or principal use; (2) Serves the principal building or principal use; (3) In other than a residentially -zoned district, is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal building or principal use served. Accessory structures in residentially -zoned MARCH 31, 2014 ITEM NO_: C CON'T. districts shall be subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal building and residential use; and (4) Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal building or principal use." The applicant notes that he has plans to construct a single family residence within the south half of the lot in the future. He noted that because of the size of the lot the accessory structure needed to be constructed first. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the above referenced ordinance criteria to allow the accessory building on the lot prior to construction of the principal structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable, as long as a specific time frame is placed on the approval. Staff suggests that an 18 month time frame be placed on the application. At the end of 18 months, construction of the principal structure (single family residence) must be started, or the issue be brought back to the Board of Adjustment for an update and possible time extension. With respect to the structure itself, staff feels that it is compatible with other accessory structures in this overall residential area. There are a number of accessory structures of similar size in this area. Staff believes placement of the accessory structure on the lot prior to construction of a principal structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to have an accessory structure on a residential lot prior to construction of a principal structure, subject to the approval being for 18 months. At the end of 18 months, construction of the principal structure must be initiated, or the issue be brought back before the Board of Adjustment for update and consideration of a time extension. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (February 24, 2014) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 31, 2014 agenda, based on the fact that the notices to surrounding property owners were not completed as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31, 2014 Agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. MARCH 31, 2014 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 31, 2014) Mitchell Burroughs was present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Mitchell Burroughs addressed the Board in support of the application. He provided photos of the property to the Board. He explained that his plan to build the accessory building first was to preserve existing trees on the site. Susan Henson addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that she had lived in the area for 14 years. She stated that she did not know if a septic system could be approved for the property. Chairman Yates asked about enforcement of staffs 18 month condition. Staff explained that if the variance were approved with an 18 month condition, the case file would be put in a suspense system and the property would be re -inspected in 18 months. The City's enforcement process was briefly discussed. Michael Rader also addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that he did not care for the building as constructed. There was a brief discussion of the building's construction. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Burroughs why he built the accessory building first. Mr. Burroughs explained that he did not know of the City's code requirements. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Burroughs if he had building plans, a contractor and financing for the new residence. Mr. Burroughs stated that he had plans and financing, but did not yet have a contractor. Scott Smith asked about the use of the accessory building. Mr. Burroughs stated that it would be used for personal storage. Mr. Smith asked the reason for building the accessory building first. Mr. Burroughs explained that if the house were built first, it would have been difficult to access the rear yard area without cutting down trees. Robert Winchester asked Mr. Burroughs how much he had spent on the accessory building. Mr. Burroughs explained that the building cost will be $32,000 upon completion. Scott Smith asked if the only variance was construction of the accessory building prior to construction of the principal structure. Staff explained that it was the only variance. There was a brief discussion about access to the rear yard area after the house is constructed. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. The application was approved.