Z-8785 Staff AnalysisJULY 30, 2012
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.:
Owner/Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-8785
Michael and Kelly McQueen
7 Ken Circle
Lot 2, and part of Lots 1 and 3, Rock Hill Addition
R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow additions which cross
a front platted building line and a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
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:
1. Prior to construction of retaining walls, a engineer's certification of design and
plans must be submitted to Public Works for approval. After construction, an
as -built certification is required for construction of the retaining wall.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7 Ken Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame
single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Ken Circle at the northwest
corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes upward from the
roadway. The property contains a front platted building line ranging from 27.9 feet
to 50 feet back from the front (west) property line. There is an existing eight (8)
foot high wood fence along a portion of the north side property line.
The applicant proposes to construct two (2) one-story additions to the front of the
residence, a new courtyard/patio area in the front and rear yards, and a new
retaining wall/fence along the north side property line. All improvements are noted
on an attached site plan.
A 22 foot by 27 foot garage addition is proposed at the front, northwest corner of
the residence. The garage addition will cross the front platted building line by 21
feet to 24 feet. It will have a front setback ranging from 26 feet to 29 feet.
JULY 30, 2012
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.
The proposed room addition at the front, southwest corner of the house will cross
the front platted building line by less than one (1) foot at its northwest corner. Both
additions will be located over 10 feet from the side property lines. A new
landscaped patio/courtyard area with raised planters will be located between the
two (2) front additions.
A new retaining wall is proposed along the north side property line. The new wall
will replace an older deteriorating rock retaining wall. The applicant plans to
replace an existing eight 8) foot high wood fence which runs along the top of the
retaining wall. The new retaining wall will allow for reconstruction of a patio area
along the north side of the residence.
Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line
encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section
36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of
six (6) feet for R-2 zoned property. Therefore, the applicants are requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the additions which cross a
front platted building line and a fence with increased height.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line and fence variances. Staff views
the request as reasonable. The City's Zoning Ordinance typically requires a
minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots, unless a platted building line
requires a greater setback, which is the case with the subject property. The
proposed additions would comply with the ordinance required typical setbacks.
The curvature of the roadway along the front property line will aid in the property
not having an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. The houses along
Ken Circle have varying setbacks from their respective front property lines.
Additionally, the property immediately to the north is located approximately five (5)
feet above the grade of the subject property. Therefore, the overall height of the
retaining wall construction with fence along the north property line will be visible
only from within the subject property. Staff believes the proposed additions with
building line encroachments and fence height will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the changed in the platted front building line for the
additions. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
JULY 30, 2012
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.
C. Staff Recommend atiou:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and fence variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. Compliance with the Public Works condition as noted in paragraph A. of
the staff report.
3. The building additions must be constructed to match the existing
residence.
4. The fence along the north side property line must not extend closer to the
street than the front corner of the proposed garage addition.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (July 30, 2012)
Kelly McQueen was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval.
Kelly McQueen addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the
proposed project. She noted that the platted building line was excessive as compared
to other lots in the area. She described the wall and fence construction along the north
property line.
Vice -Chairman Smith asked about the driveway to the proposed garage addition. Ms.
McQueen explained that the proposed garage addition will be constructed several feet
down into the slope to level the driveway. She noted that stairs at the rear of the garage
will access the main level of the house.
The issue of why the property was platted with an increased front building line was
discussed.
Robert Winchester asked the age of the house. Ms. McQueen noted that it was
constructed in 1957.
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.