Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4783-A Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -4783-A Owner/Applicant: Stewart and Debbie Noland Address: 5210 Sherwood Road Description: Lot 73, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback. 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 l9 C Public Works Issues: No Comments Buildina Codes Comments: The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the projections such as eaves or overhangs. Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line. Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5210 Sherwood Road is occupied by a two-story masonry single family residence. The property is located on the north side of Sherwood Road, east of N. Harrison Street. NOVEMBER 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. There is a one -car wide driveway at the southwest corner of the lot. A brick patio is located within the front yard area. A frame garage structure is located within the rear yard area. The applicants propose to construct a two-story addition along the west and north sides of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition on the west side of the structure will consist of an unenclosed carport with living space above. The first level carport will be unenclosed on its north, south and west sides. A small balcony area will be located on the south end of the addition. The proposed addition will be located approximately three (3) feet back from the west side property line at its front corner and five (5) feet back from the west side property line at the rear corner. The addition on the back of the house, east of the carport portion, will be two-story construction. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 6.7 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the proposed addition with a reduced side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The requested side setback for the proposed addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Numerous variances for this type of setback have been granted throughout this neighborhood over the past several years. Ample space will exist between the proposed addition and the west side property line to allow for maintenance of the area of addition and yard space. Staff feels that ample separation will exist between the proposed addition and the residence to the west. Staff believes the proposed addition with reduced side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (November 28, 2011) Debbie Noland was present, representing the application. There were three (3) persons present, representing the property immediately to the west, who were opposed to the application. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of support. Debbie Noland addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that the proposed addition is typical of those found throughout the neighborhood. She explained that the proposed addition along the west end of the residence would only be constructed over the existing driveway. NOVEMBER 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T_ Andy Francis addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He explained that he did not think there was a hardship associated with the proposed side setback variance. He noted that there was ample room within the rear yard area to construct the addition. He stated that he was only opposed to the second floor over the carport and not just a carport with a flat roof. He explained that the second floor over the carport would loom over the property to the west. He noted that other variances granted within this neighborhood should have no bearing with respect to this case. Rajesh Mehta noted that a one-story carport would also require a side setback variance. Jeff Yates asked if the applicant had met with the next door neighbors to the west. Mr. Francis noted that the applicants had initially met with the neighbors and presented the proposed plans. Mr. Yates asked if the proposed addition could be located elsewhere on the lot. Mrs. Noland explained that other options had been explored, but the plan presented was the best option. This issue was discussed further. Mr. Yates noted that the applicants have appeared to have put much thought into the project. Vice -Chairman Smith asked about the function of the proposed addition. Mrs. Noland explained the proposed addition. Vice -Chairman Smith noted that the second floor addition over the carport could be incorporated into the addition on the rear of the house. He questioned the hardship with respect to the proposed second floor over the carport. This issue was discussed further. Vice -Chairman Smith noted that he would not support the application. Mr. Yates also noted that he would not support the application and explained. Mr. Francis noted that a previous variance had been granted for the existing accessory garage in the rear yard area. Staff noted that Mrs. Noland did have the option to revise the application. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 3 nays and 0 absent. The application was denied.