Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5972 Staff AnalysisApril 24, 1995 File No. Owner: Address: Descriytion Zoned: Variance RegLiested, Justification: Present Use of Pro ert : Proposed Use of Pro ert : Staff Re ort• A. Engineering Issues: Z-5972 Steve and Laura Arnold 7324 Rockwood Lot 324, Kingwood Place Iia From the building line provisions of Section 31-12(c) to permit a carport to cross a 20 foot platted building line. The need for protection from the elements and the front of the lot is the available area for the proposed carport. Single -Family Single -Family There are none to be reported. B. Staff Analysis: The owners of 7324 Rockwood would like to add a carport to their lot and situate it between the house and the street. A variance is needed because the lot has a 20 foot building line and the plan shows a portion of the structure crossing the building line. The proposed carport is 20 feet by 20 feet and it does not appear to be directly attached to the front of the house. If the requested variance is granted, the carport will have a setback of approximately 8 feet. As with the previous case, the garage area for 7324 Rockwood also has been enclosed. The proposed plan calls for the carport to be constructed over a portion of the existing driveway. The driveway area between the carport and the street will be removed because the entrance will be on the west side of the structure and the driveway will be shifted accordingly. The old driveway area will then be landscaped to help minimize any impact created by the carport's encroachment. To make the carport April 24, 1995 Item No.: E (Cont.) structure more attractive, the owners are also planning to utilize some lattice work on several of the sides. This is being done to help make the carport's design more sensitive to the character of the block face. what is being proposed with this request appears to be the only feasible option available for the carport and the encroachment should not have an impact on the surrounding lots. Because of the lot's shallow depth and the grade in the rear yard, it is almost impossible to place a functional carport in back of the house. (Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the owner will have to do a one lot replat to modify the building line. The bill of assurance should also be reviewed to make sure the proposed carport does not violate any provision's of the document.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the building line variance for 7324 Rockwood. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the applicant was requesting that the item be deferred to the April 24, 1995 Board meeting. Due to an illness in the family, the applicant was unable to complete the notice requirement. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 24, 1995 Board meeting to allow the applicant to properly notify adjacent property owners. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF AD STMENT: (APRIL 24, 1995) The applicants, Steve and Laura Arnold, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that property owners within 200 feet of this site had been notified but two individuals had refused to sign the notice form. Steve Arnold then addressed the Board. He stated that one of those two individuals had since signed the notice. Mr. Arnold questioned the need to do a one lot replat. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, advised Mr. Arnold that the Board's approval to cross the platted building line did not remove or alter the building line. Without replatting the lot to reflect the Board's approval, the carport addition would show up as an encroachment on any title search of the property. 2 April 24, 1995 Item No. Cont.) _ A motion was made to approve the requested building line variance. The motion was approved with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 April 2J3, 1997 Item No.: File No.: Owner: Address: Zoned- E,g est Staff Retort Z-5972 Steve and Laura Arnold 7324 Rockwood R-2 The applicants are requesting a two year extension of a previously approved variance from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit a detached carport to cross a 20 foot platted building line. On April 24, 1995, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a detached carport to be located in front of the residence at 7324 Rockwood. A portion of the carport is to be built across a platted 20 foot building line. To make the carport more attractive, the owners stated that lattice work would be installed on the sides. There were no objectors at the April 24, 1995 meeting, however, one neighbor had called to voice opposition. The Board approved the variance by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The variance was approved subject to a replat of the lot reflecting the change in the building line. The carport has not yet been constructed. The applicants state that financial commitments in their business (Cantrell Design Center) have forced them to delay remodeling the house and constructing the carport. Article IV, Section 2 of the Board's Bylaws states: "If an application is approved by the Board, all permits necessary for the initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the Board approval of the application shall be considered void." The applicants are requesting a two year extension of the previously approved variance. Circumstances have not changed and staff believes it is reasonable to grant the two year extension. April 28, 1§97 Item No • 6 (Cont.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested two year extension, to expire on April 24, 1999. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 1997) The applicant, Steve Arnold, was present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of a two year extension to expire on April 24, 1999. The Board was informed that the applicant had recently filed a one -lot replat with staff but that the replat had not yet been approved. The Chairman called the question on the requested two-year extension. The extension was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2