Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout332-BAr STAFF REPORT A • :•`r w �r 1�1 FROM: Planning Division/Community Development Department REQUESTED • Consider - .- exception . reduce required 5-ft. side yard setback to 1.9 ft. for an attached carport The staff recommends approval of the special exception based on: • The applicant's, compliance with condition (b)(6) of sec. 30- 37E.2., which allows yard exceptions for side lot lines; • The adjacent and neighboring property will not be adversely effected; and The special exception will not be contrary to the best public interest. CA . Mrs. Howard Wilcox, 232 W. Caldwood Drive, has requested a special exception, as allowed under Sec. 30-37E. 2. (b) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance, to reduce the required side yard or building setback from 5-ft. to 1.9 ft. for a carport addition to her home. Setback regulations for residential properties are set out in Sec. 30-25 B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached to this report are exhibits, including a copy of the applicant's letter of application and a note from Mr. & Mrs. 'I'oxroW Jordan, the property owners most effected by the proposed construction. FSA, April 19, 1988 To Whom it may concern: My husband and I have owned and resided at 232 West Caldwood for nearly 30 years. Last August, my husband died but I plan to remain at this location and I wish to make some improvements to the property. I am enclosing a plot plan of my lot (Lot 26, Blk. 9) and also one for my neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Tommy Jordan (Lot 25, Blk. 9), who also have owned and resided at this location for 30 years. My application is for "a special exception from the minimum side yard structure set back requirement where a non -conforming building was in exist- ence at the time of the passage of this ordinance." I wish to build a two -car carport (22' wide) (#I) which would extend from my house forward over a section of my driveway. This structure would be tied into the existing house roof and it would have a hip roof style with the same pitch as the present roof. (#2) The carport would be constructed of the same materials, cedar siding, and shingled the same as is the existing house. The proposed carport would be supported by six 6" solid cedar posts, 3 on each side (#3), leaving the sides of the carport open. These cedar posts would be 19' apart on the inside, which is the minimum width for my wo cars. The roof line width would be 22' (#4). There are six skylight windows in the south part of the existing roof (#5). This presents a problem in regard to the location of the proposed carport roof line. It would not be possible to extend the proposed carport roof line any further to the north because of interfering with the skylights. The only way there would be enough room for the carport is to build it directly out from the existing house, placing the posts directly in line with the existing posts (#6). These existing posts support the house and afford a wide breezeway to the back door and back yard. Having the carport would afford me a protected path from my car to the back door of the house. The existing posts (#6) are 1' 6" inside my property line, but by placing the new posts directly in line with the existing posts, the proposed carport structure would be just an extension of the house. The proposed carport would extend 26' from the house out into the driveway. This would leave an additional 36' insde my property line on the street side. Mr. Jordan, my neighbor, has an older carport (#7) very near to the 'lot line. His driveway extends down the side of the property line and through the years, we have shared driveway space. The 318" space between our driveways is now filled with rock. We do not have a drainage problem. The proposed carport roof line would drain into this area but would present no drainage problem as there is adequate slope to the street. However, to assure that this would not create a drainage problem, we plan to have the 3' 8" space cemented making a solid water channel to the street. I think that the proposed carport would enhance my property both aesthetically and in property valuation. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan approve very enthusiastically to my proposed carport plan as you can see by the enclosed statement from them. There is no other feasible way to construct a carport on this lot, as there is not enough room on the north side of the house to make a drive to the backyard. I hope you will give this application your serious consideration. It would mean a great deal to me to be able to have this carport constructed. Thanking you very much. Mrs. Howard Wilcox ...... , ` n,_.�w— ._ '".9 ��t,J 6� �'°� n e- � .� .. l/ ,��J, '"� �� CASE # 332-BA APPLICANT: Mr. Howard Wilcox PROPERTY OWNER: Same STATUS OF APPLICANT:, X OWNER PROSPECTIVE BUYER LEASES OTHER LOCATION: 232 West Caldwood Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 26 Block 9 Caldwood Addition to City of Beaumont, Jefferson County„ Texas EXISTING ZONING: R-S (Residential Sing`le Family FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: X C (KDUNAL) B (N' =AATE) A (100 YEAR) FLOODWAY SIZE OF PROPERTY: 0.35 ACRES EXISTING LAND USES: R-S (Residential Single Family) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: Single Family Residence EAST: Single Family Residence SOUTH: Single Family Residence WEST: Drainage Ditch COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Stable Area OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES: NONE SURROUNDING ZONING: R--S R-S R-S CASE + 332--BA „ r1mlows A R SO .061 DI DoNtF. N "Jti. N l� • F} C.STING: CCEHENSIVE PIM: T R.O.W. */PAVII+iQVT DE�,"IC]ATIONf R.O.W. W. Caldwood 60' / 27' Local Residential / 60' WATER LINES (SIZE AND LOCATION) 4" water line in W. Caldwood. SANITARY SEWER (SIZE AND LOCATION) 611 sanitary sewer line in W. Caldwood. DRAINAGE :15" storm sewer in W. Caldwood. FIRE PROTECTION: FIRE STATION NO. 6, 1155 Glendale and 10, 3855 Washington Blvd. ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The public facilities and services are adequate. NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS 13 RESPONSES IN FAVOR 1 RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION COMMENTS The propert owner ad ' acent to the side the s cial exception is pro sed on is in favor of the special exception. R. O. W.= RIGHT OF WAY CASE+ 332-BA Special Exceptions may be granted in the following situations: a) To reconstruct, extend or enlarge a building occupied by a nonconforming use on the lot or tract occupied by such building, provided that the reconstruc- tion, extension, or enlargement does not prevent the return of the property to a conforming use. b) To deviate yard requirements in the following circumstances: c) 1) An exception from the front yard requirements where the actual front yard setback of an abutting lot does not meet the front yard requirement or a rear yard exception where the actual rear yard setback of any four (4) or more lots in the same block do not meet the rear yard requirements of these regulations. 2) A yard exception on corner lots. 3) An exception where the existing front yard setbacks of the various lots in the same block are not uniform, so that any one of the existing front yard setbacks shall, for a building hereafter constructed or extended, be the required minimum front yard depth. 4) An exception from the minimum front yard requirements for owner identifi- cation signs where a structure existing at the effective date of this Chapter precludes locating a sign in compliance with the setback regula- tion. 5) An exception from a minimum interior side yard setback requirement for owner identification signs for existing businesses which were developed prior to April 1, 1981, where there is no safe place to erect a sign in compliance with the minimum setback requirements. A condition for grant- ing of the exception is that the applicant must demonstrate that the sign shall not screen or obstruct the view of an existing sign, building, or outdoor display area. To waive or reduce off-street parking and loading requirements when the Board finds the same are unnecessary for the proposed use of the building or struc- ture for which the special exception request applies. SOURCE: City of Beaumont Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 30-37E.2. CASE + 332-BA The Board of Adjustment may grant a Special Exception from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if the request complies with one of the conditions listed in the Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions and if the Board finds that the special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property or be contrary to the best public interest. Sec. 30-27 E.2. (b)(6) authorizes an exception from the minimum side yard setback requirements where a non -conforming building was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance. The existing building was constructed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. The house with a carport was constructed in 1946, after the war, according to the applicant. • The special exception will not adversely effect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property. The proposed carport will be 22- ft. wide and 26-ft. deep. After construction the remaining front yard will be 36 feet from the front of the carport to the front property line. This is in excess of the 25-ft. minimum yard required. The new carport will be separated from the home of the next door neighbor (Jordan) by approximately 25-ft. This will provide sufficient separation between structures to ensure fire protection. • To deny the request would result in a particular hardship on the applicant while doing little to advance or protect the interests of the general public. The existing carport at 232 W. Caldwood is not large enough for two full sized cars and has not been used in the past for vehicle storage. Mrs. Wilcox has no plans to enclose the existing carport but will use it as a breezeway and access to her side door. The edge of her carport which was constructed as part of the home is 1.9 ft. from her side lot line. The proposed carport will extend out matching the existing building line. The carport will allow the applicant to cover and protect her vehicles and will have no side walls. This exception will not be contrary to the public interest.