Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9616 BOA Action Letter - Approved With Conditions 010322DECEMBER 16, 2021 ITEM NO. 6 Z-9616 1 File No.: Z-9616 Owners: Hugh D. and Luverda J. Clay Applicant: Hugh D. Clay Address: 5605 Southboro Drive Legal Description: Lot 93 Southgate Subdivision, to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County Arkansas Zoned: R-2 Present Use: Single-family Residence Proposed Use: Single-family Residence Variance(s) Requested: A variance is requested from area regulations of Sec. 36-156 to allow an accessory structure to be located closer than sixty (60) feet to the front property line, and to allow the same accessory structure to be separated from the primary structure by less than 6-feet. Justification: The applicant’s justification is presented as per the attached letter. STAFF REPORT A. Planning and Development Civil Engineering Comments: No Comments. B. Buffering and Landscape Comments: No Comments. C. Building Codes Comments: No Comments. D. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located in southeast part of the city, east of Geyer Springs Rd, and south of McClellan Drive. The subject property is in Southgate subdivision at 5605 Southboro Dr and occupied by a one-story single-family brick and frame DECEMBER 16, 2021 ITEM NO. 6 Z-9616 2 home. The property is located on the south side of the road with drive access located on the east side of the property. The adjacent and surrounding properties are also occupied by single family residences. The applicant has stated that they have installed a 21 x 20 portable carport in the front of the home which is 7-feet in height. The carport partially encloses a drive that is indicated to be approximately 17-feet 5-inches in width. The provided sketch shows that the carport is separated from the primary structure approximately 2 feet and extends across the 25-foot front yard setback approximately 19-feet. The north edge of the carport is located 6-feet from the property line and the right-of-way is indicated to be approximately 12-feet in width from the property line to the back of the street curb. The carport not being attached to the house would be classified as an accessory structure. In addition to accessory structures not being allowed within 60 feet of the front property line are also required to be separated from the primary structure a minimum of 6-feet. The applicant is asking that this non-conforming structure be allowed to remain as constructed and is requesting variances to allow the carport to cross the 25-foot front setback, be located within 60-feet from the front property line and be separated from the primary structure less than the minimum 6-foot requirement. Sec. 36-156 2(b) states, “All single- and two-family residences shall be separated from accessory structures by a distance of not less than six (6) feet.” Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to allow a reduction of the required accessory structure separation from the primary structure to 2-feet. Sec. 36-156 2 (c) states, “Accessory buildings or structures in the R-1 through R-4A districts shall not be located closer than sixty (60) feet to the front property line….” Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to allow the accessory structure to be placed 6-feet from the front property line. Based on the above assessment and analysis, Staff finds the requested variances to be out of character with the surrounding development and in direct violation of the code requirements. In addition, Staff feels that the existing accessory structure detracts from the value and aesthetic of the neighborhood or surrounding properties. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request to allow the existing accessory building (carport) to continue as constructed within 60-feet of the front property line, crossing the 25-foot front yard setback, and not being separated from the primary structure a minimum of 6-feet. Additionally, Staff recommends the removal of this non- conforming structure. DECEMBER 16, 2021 ITEM NO. 6 Z-9616 3 Board of Adjustment (December 16, 2021) Hugh Clay was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Hugh Clay addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that he and his wife owned the property and rented it to a disabled elderly woman who needed the covered area during inclement weather. He stated that he attempted to get a building permit in 2020 to construct a permanent carport but he could locate a temporary carport there instead. He stated that he discussed the issue with neighboring houses with the same type of structure and was not told to seek a variance or permit. City Attorney Latimer stated that the board could grant the variance it the situation was deemed a hardship. A general discussion occurred with the commission regarding the relocation of the structure and the front setback of the dwelling in relation to the street. Commissioner Grinder made a motion to approve the request with condition that the structure will be removed from the property once the current tenant ends their lease agreement and vacates the property. Bertram 2nd, the motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent.