Loading...
boa_09 21 1987LITTLE ROCK BOA RD OF ADJUSTM ENT MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being five in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Board approved mi nutes of the previous meeting as mailed. III. Members Present:George Wells John McDaniels -Acting Chairman Joe Norcross Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Members Absent: Cynthia Alderman Thomas McGowan Rex Crain Ronald Woods City Attorney Present: Bob Hall September 21, 1987 Item No. A - Z-4848 Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the problem of the excessive slope of the property in a unique, practical, and attractive way which enhances the overall value of the property. (2) Because it has been in existence for four years. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues. B. Staff Analvsis This issue is before the Board because of an enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff received a complaint about a possible violation of a setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon investigation, it was determined that a wood structure /deck was built into the side yard and that it needed to be removed or the necessary variance be applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique situation because the construction in question has been in place for four years without any inquiries being made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne. September 21, 1987 Item No. A - Continued At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided that something needed to be done to provide access to a back door because the lot slopes downward from the Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood walkway/deck was constructed between the house and the east property line connecting the front with a deck which was built at the same time. All the necessary permits for the major construction were obtained, but the deck/walkway was not included in the original permit application because it was an afterthought and no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This was an oversight on the part of the various parties involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front and then is several feet above ground level at the rear of the house. It is constructed right to the property line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the residence to the east because of the driveway. Also, there is a masonry wall along the east property line which appears to lessen the impact of the structure being built to the line. The walkway/deck does address a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most functional design solution for the property. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-15-87) The Chairman reported that he had received a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to the August meeting. A motion was made to defer the request to the August 17, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87) Neither the applicant or any objectors were present at the meeting. Staff reported that Mr. Dana Carney of the Zoning Enforcement staff had been out to review whether there still was an enforcement issue due to the fact that the applicant had lowered the deck in the area where the neigbhor was objecting. Mr. Carney felt that there wasn't a need for the applicant to pursue a variance. There was some discussion among the Board as to whether they should just withdraw the application without any official written notification from September 21, 1987 Item No. A - Continued the applicant. A motion was then made to defer the application another month in order for staff to notify the applicant that the application will be withdrawn unless the Board receives some response indicating the applicant desires further action. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Neither the applicant nor a representative was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff stated that a letter had been sent informing the applicant the application would be withdrawn if no one was present at the meeting. The Board then voted 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to withdraw this item from the agenda. September 21, 1987 Item No. B - Z-4877-A Owner: I-30 Industrial Park Rentals Address: 6900 Block of Allied Way Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6, I-30 Industrial Park Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of Paragraph A of Section B of Article 5, Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit construction of new buildings in the floodway. Justification: Due to the shape, size, and configuration of the lot. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REVIEW A. Engineering Issues Issues reported by Engineering will be discussed in the staff analysis. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a variance to allow for the construction of new buildings within the floodway. The ordinance states that (a) within the floodplain (100 -year flood elevation), there exists an area of the channel or stream bed called the floodway and so designated on the Type 15 flood insurance study. No building or structure shall be allowed within said floodway; (b) in order to build or operate any structure or use, it must be an allowable use among those specified as allowable uses in the base or principal zoning classification, provided further so such use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodway of any designated creek, stream, tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or other drainage facility or system; and provided still further, no such use or combination of uses shall raise the level of the one hundred (100) year flood a distance of one (1) foot. September 21, 1987 Item No. B - Continued The site in question is located in the I-30 Industrial Park, and the applicant has filed with the Planning Commission for consideration of a Planned Unit Development. In January of this year, the Army Corps of Engineers redesigned the boundaries for the floodway in this area of the City, which placed the entire site in the floodway. Prior to the redesign by the Corps, the applicant had taken steps to put in place the existing fill on the property to raise it out of the then floodway boundaries. The applicant purchased the property in October 1986, for development as a small business Industrial Park prior to the revisions of the floodway maps. Engineering reports that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship due to the fact of the revision of the floodway map in January of this year by the Army Corps of Engineers and the existing fill on the property being done prior to the revision. Engineering's recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the following: (1) The floor elevations being at least 2 to 3 feet above that which is required by the 100 year flood level. (2) That any further filling of the site must come from the boundaries along the bank of Fourche Creek. Engineering's intent is for there to be no fill brought on -site from outside of the property. Before the Planning Commission can take action on the proposed Planned Unit Development, the Board of Adjustment has to determine whether relief to the applicant can be allowed for the proposed construction in question, and if the variance is granted, the applicant will be required to deed that property which is in the floodway to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to and pursuant of the conditions as reported in the staff analysis and recommended by Engineering. Also meeting of the necessary requirements of deeding to the City of Little Rock that property located in the floodway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87) The Board of Adjustment deferred this item until the September 21, 1987, meeting due to the fact that neither the applicant nor a representative was present at the meeting. Also, the applicant had not returned to staff copies of the notification requirements. There were objectors present at the meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-21-87) The applicant had requested a 60 -day deferral. A motion was made to allow for the deferral and passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-4834-A Owner: Richard Emmett Jones Address: 10,210 I-30 Description: Tract 2, Vogelsberg Subdivision Zoned: "C-4" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.3 to permit construction of a new building with a rear yard setback. Justification: The architectural design of the building will keep the splendid massive look and supply the bare minimum space requirement to make the move. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering is requesting that the parking layout and driveway be approved by the Acting Traffic Engineer. The landscaping requirements of the ordinance will also need to be met. B. Staff Analysis The variance requested before the Board of Adjustment is to allow the construction of a new building on a vacant lot with a reduced rear yard setback of 15 feet. The property is zoned "C-4" which requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The past history on the property indicates that the lot has been platted with a 25-foot front yard before the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff does not feel that by not having the required 45 feet front yard for "C-4" zoning is an issue. A justification of the applicant for the granting of the variance is that due to the design of the new building and reducing the design to the bare minimum in order to meet the required space needed and facilitate the use of a motorcycle dealership, the reduction in the rear yard is needed. September 21, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued To the rear of the property, there is a brick storage facility that will not be adversely affected by the variance requested. There is a small structure presently on the property that will be removed. In accordance with "C-4" zoning, the depth really isn't as much as normally found. There are several concerns that staff feels the applicant needs to address before the granting of this variance. First, staff does not feel that at this time any discussion of the future expansion to the east side of the property should be addressed. At the point when the applicant feels the expansion is needed and a more detailed plan can be presented, then the request should be brought before the proper board. It is staff's opinion that the rear property line should, if the variance is granted, remain within a 15-foot setback. Secondly, the applicant needs to address the fact that on the northwest side of the property, there appears to be an intrusion into the required side yard setback of 15 feet. Thirdly, staff would like for the applicant to address whether any of the property will be used for storage purposes, such as for old motorcycles or those needing to be serviced. On the west side of the property, there is a considerable amount of property space that will not be utilized according to the survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the conditions that the future expansion not be included at this time and the applicant addressing the concerns that staff discussed in the staff analysis. The applicant will also have to adhere to the recommendations of the City Engineer. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. Richard E. Jones, the applicant, requested that the initial rear yard variance be decreased from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow for better use of the property. Staff stated that the applicant needed to address what the use would be to the property on the west side, whether it would be used for storage for old or serviced motorcycles. Mr. Jones stated that the property to the west would not be utilized for service of old motorcycles or storage. Staff felt that the issue of the future expansion should not be addressed at this time, and that the application should also be amended to include a side yard September 21, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued variance to address the encroachment of the building on the northwest corner into the 15 feet side yard requirement. Mr. Richard Wood addressed the request of the reduced rear yard to 10 feet instead of 15 feet. Mr. Wood stated that staff could not go along with the request because of the possibility that the rear of the property will not be accessible in an emergency situation. The encroachment will run over 100 feet of the total rear yard property line. A motion was made to approve the application subject to: (a) the applicant meeting all of the Engineering issues, (b) the rear yard variance being 15 feet only, (c) the application be amended to include the side yard variance to the northwest corner, and (d) that the future expansion to the east not be addressed at this time. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-4893 Owner: Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Hornibrook Address: #14 Pinehurst Circle Description: Lot 14, Block 5, Pleasant Valley Add. Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the subdivision provisions of Section 37.25 to permit an addition to cross a platted building line. Justification: The purpose of this request is to construct a small room to house a whirlpool tub in order to take advantage of the whirlpool therapy recommended by the applicant's physician. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues to report at this time. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is that of granting a building line waiver. About six months ago, the Subdivision Ordinance was amended to state basically that any changes within a platted building line will now be addressed by the Board of Adjustment and not the Planning Commission as in the past. The amendment is stated as follows: Buildinq Line Variances In those instances where a recorded subdivision plat has established building setback lines in accordance with the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Variances of those lines shall only be granted by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment. That body shall September 21, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued review each building line variance request for hardship circumstances as instructed by Section 3-101. of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Those variances approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be reflected upon a plat of the subject lot /lots which shall be recorded in the Office of the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County, Arkansas, along with an appropriate Bill of Assurance amendment. In accordance with what is set out in the Subdivision Ordinance, it is now the function of the Board of Adjustment to either endorse or not endorse modifications to any platted building line. It should also be understood that any action of approval by this Board for a building line waiver is not to be considered as final action. In order for any building line waiver to be achieved, two additional steps are needed. First, the Bill of Assurance which is "a legal document specifying the covenants and restrictive conditions applicable to a particular property" has to be amended. This amendment is achieved by addressing the conditions stated in the Bill of Assurance which vary according to the instrument. Secondly, it will be necessary to submit to the Planning Department a one lot replat showing the new changes that have occurred. The applicant's reason for the building line waiver is for the expansion of an existing addition to encroach into the southeast platted building line 6.5 feet. The lot is large in size and the proposed request would not place any impact on the traffic in the area or the adjacent property owners. The expanded addition will be constructed so as to keep with the present design of the house. A hardship does exist and staff sees no problems with the granting of the variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance. If the Board chooses to grant this variance, it is incumbent of the applicant to then address: (a) the submittal of an amendment to the Bill of Assurance properly drafted, and (b) the filing in the Planning Department of a one lot replat showing the changes in the platted building line. September 21, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board that the application was deficient because the notice requirement had not been met. The Board then made a motion to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4894 Owner: BrandyWine Corporation /White-Daters Address: 421 Nix Road Description: Lot 8, Block 4, Gibralter Heights Add. Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit construction of a single family home with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The size of the lot is such that it would be impossible to build in a reasonable way without the reduced front yard that is being proposed. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is the granting of a variance for a reduced front yard setback of 9 feet. The lot at present is vacant and 50 feet in size. The applicant is planning the construction of a new residence on the lot. The required setback is 25 feet on both the Nix Road frontage and the Archer Street frontage. The applicant feels that without this variance it would be impossible to utilize the lot in a reasonable way. Staff feels that the applicant does, in fact, have a hardship due to the requirement of two 25-foot front yards on a corner lot. The construction of the residence with the proposed setback would not place any undue impact on the adjacent property owners or the traffic on either street frontages. The new structure September 21, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued structure will be consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood. This area is a newly developed one with several houses being constructed. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by Joe White of White-Daters Engineers. Mr. White stated that the size of the lot is such that it makes it impossible to build in a reasonable way and meet the ordinance requirement. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4895 Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Earl Wells, Jr. Address: 8316 Leatrice Description: Lot 16, Sheraton Park Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit construction of a new addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The lot is short in length and because of how the house is situated, building a room on the side or front is not a good alternative. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no comments to report at this time. B. Staff Analysis What the applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment is the granting of a variance with a reduced rear yard. The encroachment will be 2 feet in order to construct a bedroom with a closet to facilitate the need for additional sleeping space. The requirement of the zoning of "R-2" Single Family is 25 feet, and what the applicant will have is 23 feet if the variance is granted. Staff feels that the applicant has a justified hardship due to the fact that the rear of the property is the only suitable location for the new addition. At the rear of the property, there is a 10-foot easement that already reduces the side of the rear yard but allows for enough separation to the neighbor to the north which has a large rear yard. The easement does extend September 21, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued to the east side but as shown on the survey is only half of the total width size. The request will not place any impact to the neighbor to the east and is keeping with the present structural alignment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board that this item was withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4896 Owner: Russell B. McDonough, Jr. Address: 2201 North Palm Description: Lot 24 and S 1/2 of Lot 23, Block 10, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2, D.3, and D.1 to permit new constructions with reduced front, side, and rear yards. Justification: The request for the needed variance is to accommodate for the design of having additional interior space. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. b. Staff Analysis At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request for the granting of variances for the front, rear, and side yards. The front yard in question is the one located on the south side of the property facing Country Club Boulevard. Under the guidelines stated in the Zoning Ordinance, a lot that fronts two streets is required to have a 25-foot front yard setback, and the applicant has proposed to have a 15-foot front yard setback. On the rear of the property, the request is for an encroachment of 3 feet to allow for the construction of a two -story addition and a porch, but the requirement of the ordinance is for 25 feet. There is a closed alley also located at the rear of the property that functions as part of the property. To the north side of the property, the applicant is requesting to increase the present setback from 1.9 September 21, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued feet to 5 feet. A north side yard setback of 7.5 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance. A totally different designed addition will be constructed to accommodate the desire for more interior space. The granting of the request for each variance will not present any adverse impact to any of the surrounding property owners or the traffic on Country Club Boulevard. There is a large amount of mature hedge growth along Country Club Boulevard and the view of the street is virtually closed. The requirement of two front lots dictates the need for this request. The alley to the rear of the property gives the physical impression of being part of the property which will give an added separation to the property owner to the east. Also, the fact of one of the new additions being two stories will not present a problem of privacy to the neighbor on the east because the property is 140 feet in depth, has a substantial brick and wooden fence along the property line and alley, and also with the alley a visually deeper view is given. The fact that the property owner is wanting to increase the setback on the north side will enhance the property more than what the present structure shows with such a small side yard setback. Surrounding the property, there is a considerable amount of mature landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation of staff is the granting of the variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Russell B. McDonough, Jr., the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z-4899 Owner: Todd Holt Address: 1825 North Jackson Description: South 62 feet of Lot 44, Shadow Lawn Addition Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit construction of a new addition with a reduced side yard. Justification: The inability to alter the design of the house due to the new addition to the rear already being under construction. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues to be reported. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment the granting of a variance for a reduced side yard which will be 3.2 feet, but the ordinance requires a 6-foot side yard setback. The request is needed to complete the final stages of the remodeling of the home. The new construction will be a carport and front porch addition. In order for the applicant to achieve the desired effects of the remodeling design, this variance will need to be granted. The request would not present any impact to the neighbor to the north. The property owner to the north has a 7.2 foot side yard separation to the applicant's north property and with the applicant's 3.2 feet request, there will be adequate separation, and the present building alignment will continue. There also is landscaping separating the two side yards. The driveway on the west side of the property is presently established. On the south September 21, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued of the structure, the setback is considerable which makes the house uncentered and allows for this proposed location, which is the north side, to be the only suitable one. If the Board of Adjustment grants the requested variance, it will be necessary for the applicant to ensure that drainage will be provided in order to prevent any runoff to the property owner to the north. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the applicant providing for proper drainage for the runoff on his property and that the carport never be enclosed. September 21, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued of the structure, the setback is considerable which makes the house uncentered and allows for this proposed location, which is the north side, to be the only suitable one. If the Board of Adjustment grants the requested variance, it will be necessary for the applicant to ensure that drainage will be provided in order to prevent any runoff to the property owner to the north. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the applicant providing for proper drainage for the runoff on his property and that the carport never be enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-21-87) Ms. Robin Holt, wife to the applicant, was present and spoke in Mr. Todd Holt's behalf. Staff informed the Board that there was a possible problem with the notice requirement. Notice is to be given at least 10 days before the date of the meeting to the property owners within 200 feet and Ms. Holt had given notice only seven days prior to the date of the meeting. Ms. Holt stated that the sign had been up about two weeks and the neighbor to the north, who she felt was the most important, had signed off on the notice. There was one phone inquiry about the case but for information only. A motion was made to allow the application to be heard. It passed 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. The applicant then was asked if she had a problem adhering to staff's recommendation that the carport never be enclosed. Mrs. Holt stated there would be no problem. A motion was made to approve the item as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 7 - Z-4901 Owner: Linda C. Taylor Address: 7624 West 45th Street Description: East 50 feet of Lot 5, Block 2 of Westwood Addition Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the area provision of Section 7- 101.2 /D.1 to permit construction of an awning on the front with a reduced setback. Justification: No other suitable location is available due to the size of the lot and location of the house. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is the granting of a variance to allow for a reduced front yard setback of 5 feet, the requirement is a setback of 25 feet for a "R-2" Single Family residence. The intent behind the request is to allow for construction of an aluminum awning over the driveway which is presently in place. The house is small in size, narrow on the sides, and does not allow for the drive or a carport to be located in any other area of the property. The structure in question is a frame house located in one of the older established neighborhoods. West 45th Street is not a through street and is narrow in size. The survey does not show the fact that there is about a 15 feet separation from the property line to the front of the street, which with an on-site view places September 21, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued the structure a considerable distance from the street. Because of the location of the present structure on the lot, there is no possible way to allow for the area to the rear to be utilized for this request. Staff feels that a hardship has been displayed and doesn't see where granting of this variance will impact any of the adjacent property owners or the traffic on West 45th Street. There also is no possibility that 45th Street will never be widened in the near future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the condition that the awning never be enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-21-87) Mrs. Linda Taylor, the applicant, was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was asked if there was a problem for her to adhere to staff's recommendation. The applicant stated, no, and a motion was made to approve the application subject to staff's recommendation which stated that the awning should never be enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 8 - Z-4902 Owner: Joseph and Helen Herrin Address: #57 Normandy Description: Lots 7 and 8, Normandy Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area and height exception provisions of Section 5-102.2.0 to permit a pool to be less than 60 feet from a front property line. Justification: The proposed location is the only appropriate area where the pool can be placed. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant has in place an above the ground constructed pool that was cited by the Building Permits Office when he attempted to obtain a building permit to complete the patio area and for the construction of a fence. Under the guidelines stated in the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory structure that is located on a lot that fronts two streets that accessory has to have a front yard setback of 60 feet. The accessory structure in question is only 27 feet; therefore, the requested variance is needed. Located on the south side of the property, the constructed pool imposes upon the required front yard setback to the Normandy Street frontage. This property is located on a small hill that has a noticeable slope which makes the view from Normandy to the site of the pool restrictive. Inasmuch as the house is somewhat centered on the lot and with the driveway located on September 21, 1987 Item No. 8 - Continued the north side of the lot, there would be no way the rear of the property could adequately serve as a location for the pool. There also would be the question of providing sufficient screening and separation to the property owner to the east. Staff feels that the applicant has chosen the most suitable location. The present location does not present any impact to the street on Normandy or the adjacent property owners. The applicant does have a justifiable hardship in staff's opinion because of the corner lot requirement for an accessory structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance. The applicant should be aware that if this variance is granted the necessary requirements of the Building Permits Office will still need to be met since the initial construction was done without a building permit. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Mike Nolan was present to represent the applicant. No objectors were in attendance at the meeting. A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff. Staff pointed out that the applicant will still need to adhere to all of the Building Permits Office requirements. A motion was made to approve the application subject to staff's recommendation. The application was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 9 - Z-4903 Owner: Dean Williamson Address: 5523 Woodlawn Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 30, Lincoln Park Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the height and area exception provisions of Section 5-102.2.0 to permit construction of an accessory structure less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: (1) The occupants of 5523 Woodlawn have had both of their cars vandalized several times this past year and a half. (2) Much needed storage space for lawn mowers, yard and garden tools. Some of these items have been removed in the past month. (3) This new addition will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood as well as provide protection of the occupant's vehicles and yard items. STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues to report at this time. B. Staff Analysis At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request to allow for an accessory structure to be less than the required 60 feet from the front property line. The applicant is proposing to have an accessory structure of a garage that will be 31 feet from the front property line of Woodlawn Avenue. Even though the house fronts on North Taylor Street, it is not a through street. September 21, 1987 Item No. 9 - Continued Staff feels that the applicant does possess a hardship because of the requirements of a corner lot having two front yards, and the fact that the size of the lot is only 60 feet. There is a considerable amount of rear yard, and the applicant in staff's opinion placed the garage in the most suitable area. If the garage was attached to the frame one -story structure, which is small, the windows to the back bedroom would be lost. There is a gravel drive in place that can be entered or exited to an open alley to the rear of the property. If the variance is granted, the applicant does propose to utilize the existing drive as well as make necessary improvements to it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Dean Williamson, the applicant, was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Williamson stated that he would prefer the distance from the house to the garage to be increased to 20 feet instead of the proposed 10 feet. The Board and staff felt that the increase would not present a problem or affect the variance in question. A motion was made to approve the application with the increased distance from the house to the garage being 20 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 10 - Z-4904 Owner: H. Terry Rasco Address: 5720 North Country Club Boulevard Description: Lot 53, Forest Heights Addition Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: (1) From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit construction of a new addition with a reduced side yard. (2) From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit construction of a two -car carport to the rear with a reduced setback. Present Use of Property: Single Family Prposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The issues before the Board of Adjustment are twofold. First, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced rear yard setback of 5 feet for a two -car carport. The required amount for "R-2" zoned property is 25 feet. The applicant will be increasing the east rear side yard setback to 7.5 feet to be in compliance with an existing Bill of Assurance which is still operational. Also, this increase to the east side yard will exceed the requirement stated in the ordinance which is 6 feet. Secondly, for the upper east side yard, the request is for a reduced side yard of 2 feet and the required amount is still 6 feet. September 21, 1987 Item No. 10 - Continued What the applicant is proposing is the construction of a two-car carport with a storage area attached to the rear of the structure which will be utilized with an existing driveway and provide covering to facilitate loading and unloading of his son in inclement weather. Midway of the east side yard of the property, there will be a newly constructed covered outdoor patio that will be attached to the proposed two-car carport and a new den addition to the rear of the existing frame structure. On the east side of the property, there will be a small pool constructed that will be attached to the new den addition, covered outdoor patio, and expansion of an existing bedroom in order for the son to use the pool for physical therapy and recreation. The area of the requested variance is an established neighborhood where a lot of expansion has been taking place in the past years. Staff feels that the applicant does, in fact, display a hardship due to the fact of wanting to make the present structure as accessible as possible for his handicapped son who is confined to a wheelchair. The present structure is small in size. The roofline of the new den and covered patio will be maintained at the 7.5 requested east side yard setback as specified in the Bill of Assurance. The pool will not be enclosed and will be used basically for therapeutic exercises for the son. The applicant will construct a 6 -foot high brick fence to ensure privacy to the neighbor to the east of the property. None of the proposed new construction will place any impact to the adjacent property owner. Staff does feel that the applicant has a justified hardship. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the two-car carport and pool area never being enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. H. Terry Rasco, the applicant, was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. An amendment to the application was made to waive the 30 percent rear yard requirement. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the two-car carport and pool area never be enclosed. Also, inclusive in the approval was the amendment of the waivering of the 30 percent rear yard requirement. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 Item No. 11 - Z-4905 Owner: Sloan Bennett Address: #23 Brooklawn Description: Lots 204 and 205, Brookfield Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-102.2/C to permit an accessory structure less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: Due to the fact of utility easements being located to the rear of my property, I had no other choice but to place the pool on the adjacent lot which two front yard setbacks. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting the granting of a variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of having a 60-foot front yard for an accessory structure. The structure in question is an in ground concrete pool that is 50 feet from the front yard setback on Brooklawn and 40 feet from the front yard setback on Rodney Parham Road. The structure is in place and is located on the north side of the existing house. There is an 8 foot privacy fence that surrounds the rear, north, and part of the west property line. A considerable amount of landscaping along with the fence brings the pool from the neighbors to the east. The property itself encompasses two lots, but the pool is located only on one of the lots, and even though the property has a considerable amount of depth, the requirement of the ordinance stating a corner lot has September 21, 1987 Item No. 11 - Continued to have two front yards does present a hardship for the applicant. Staff feels that due to the fact there is a high enough privacy fence on the property and no impact will be placed on the adjacent property owner or the traffic on either street frontages, there are no problems at this time. The applicant will, if the variance is granted, retain enough frontage on both streets in order to provide for the accessory structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the variance as filed. The applicant will still be required to meet all the building permits requirements due to the fact the pool is already in place. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not present at the meeting. A motion was made to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. September 21, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned, at 3 p.m. Chairman Planning Director Date