Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Permit Number - T09SA00079
Review Name: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/03/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/10/2009 | DCORRAL1 | COMMUNITY PLANNING | REVIEW | Completed | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN C10-09-06 Siegmund Property Second Dwelling/R. And M. Siegmund 3022 East First Street, R-1 University Area Plan and Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan April 9, 2009 drcorral The applicants are requesting variances to reduce the minimum lot area required for a second dwelling and to reduce the building setbacks for Building B, as shown on the submitted plans. This site is within the boundaries of the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan (SHNP) and the University Area Plan (UAP), which provide land use guidance for this request. The General Plan (GP) and Design Guidelines Manual (DGM) provide additional relevant land use direction for this case. Policy Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan LAND USE Recommendations for land use in the Sam Hughes neighborhood focus on maintaining the present residential aspect and integrity of the neighborhood. The residents of the Sam Hughes neighborhood recognize that development on vacant land will occur and strongly encourage that development design: Goal 1: Maintain the quiet, single-family residential character of the Sam Hughes neighborhood. Policy 2: Preserve the unique diversity and character of the neighborhood's historic and architectural value. Implementation: 2. Building setbacks for new structures should be at least those which exist on contiguous lots or as required by the City of Tucson Major Streets and Routes Plan and Gateway regulations adopted by Mayor and Council. University Area Plan Adopted Policies and Recommendations Section 1: Overall Goals of the University Area Plan 1. Recognize distinct neighborhoods in the University Area, and support those changes, which protect and enhance the character, identity, and residential quality of life in these neighborhoods. Section 8: General Design Guidelines 1. Complement surrounding development - Utilize compatible building materials, architectural style and ornamentation, setbacks, setbacks, and variations in building height or mass to complement the scale and character of surrounding development and reduce the appearance of excessive height and bulk. DISCUSSION The applicants' property is a 7,525 square foot lot developed with a single-family dwelling and a garage that was converted into a second dwelling unit. A variance for a reduced side yard setback (down to four (4) feet from the required 15 feet) was granted on July 20, 1955, to allow half of the garage to be converted into sleeping quarters. Some time later, the remaining half of the garage was converted into a kitchen and living area, without zoning approval or permits. The applicant's property is located on a local residential street in the SHNP and UAP. R-1 zoning and residential uses surround the property. A minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is required to construct a second dwelling unit on R-1 zoned property. As such, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the lot size by 2,475 square feet, and is also requesting a variance to reduce the west side yard setback from six (6) feet to three (3) feet, six inches. Neither the SHNP nor the UAP specifically addresses the proposed variance requests. However, the SHNP calls for land use that preserves the unique diversity and character of the neighborhood's historic and architectural value, while the UAP support changes, which protect and enhance the character, identity, and residential quality of life. Both the SHNP and the UAP state that the distinct neighborhoods in this area should be recognized and that the character of the neighborhoods should be preserved. The GP promotes neighborhood identity, visual character, and quality design in residential areas. The GP also states that building orientation should help create a cohesive, distinct neighborhood that is an asset to the larger community and that unconnected and/or monotonous designs and repetitive building footprints and orientations should be avoided. The DGM states that to add character and to create a sense of uniqueness that setbacks should be varied. CONCLUSION The pattern of development in the neighborhood is diverse. Based on aerial views it appears that the applicant's variance requests are not dissimilar to other development in the surrounding area. Therefore, SHNP, the UAP, the GP, and the DGM support the variance requests. s:\caserev\boa\10-C10-09-06 Siegmund Property 2nd dwelling |
| 04/16/2009 | JIM VOGELSBERG | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | No objection / adverse comments. Jim Vogelsberg PE 4.16.09 |
| 04/22/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Completed | TDOT-Traffic has no objections to Case C10-09-06 requesting variances to reduce the minimum lot area required for a second dwelling. |