Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6487 Staff AnalysisJuly 27, 1998 �7 File No. Owner: Address: Descriptio Zoned: escri tio Zoned• Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6487 Dolly Moseley/Vivek Sharma 5017 Maryland Avenue East 43.8 feet of the West 90.47 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 10, Cunningham Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-255 to permit a carport addition with reduced side yard setback. Justification is presented by the applicant in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family Direct run-off away from adjacent property. Gutter and downspouts required. B. Staff Analysis: The nal sis- The R-3 zoned property at 5017 Maryland Avenue is occupied by a small, single-family residential structure. The occupant of the home has recently constructed a carport addition onto the east side of the house. The addition has a side yard setback of 0 feet. Section 36-255 requires a side yard setback of 4.38 feet for this lot. The applicant has also constructed a privacy fence along the sides and rear property lines of the property. In response to a complaint about the fence, the code enforcement officer observed the newly constructed carport and issued a notice to the applicant for the side yard violation. Staff does have concerns about the carport as it is constructed. The structure has a shed -type roof, angling down toward the adjacent property. As the carport is now constructed, there is not room enough for guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. The house on the adjoining lot has a side yard setback of 4± feet, July 27, 1998 Item No.: A resulting in a separation between structures of only 4± feet. Staff has taken a consistent position of opposing 0' setbacks between properties. Although we recognize the possible difficulty the applicant will have in modifying the carport, staff believes the potential negative impact on the adjoining property warrants such action. A side yard setback of 18 inches would allow for guttering, adequate separation between structures and would allow the applicant to work on the structure without having to enter the neighbor's property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback for the existing carport. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 18, 1998) The applicant, Vivek Sharma, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Sharma addressed the Board in support of his application. He stated that he would cut back the structure's overhang and install guttering. Mr. Sharma stated that he felt he could make those modifications without encroaching on the neighbor's property. He also stated that -he could obtain a letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, suggested that the item be deferred to the June meeting and that the following two actions take place: 1. Mr. Sharma obtain the letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. 2. officials from the City's zoning and building codes offices meet Mr. Sharma on the site to determine if the suggested modifications can be made to the carport. A motion was made to defer the item to the June 29, 1998 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Chuck Givens, City of Little Rock Building Codes Manager, met Mr. Sharma on the site and inspected the carport. Mr. Givens stated that he felt the overhang could be cut back and the carport modified so that it could accommodate guttering without extending 2 July 27, 1998 Item No beyond the property line. Mr. Givens stated that the structure would then have a side yard setback of 0-2 inches. Staff's opinion regarding the reduced setback has not changed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 29, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board of Mr. Givens' inspection of the property and of staff's continued opposition to a 0' setback. The applicant, Vivek Sharma, addressed the Board. He stated that he was having difficulty obtaining a letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. Mr. Sharma stated that the adjacent property owner lived in Sherwood and was extremely busy because he was in the air conditioner installation business. Mr. Sharma stated that he had begun to install guttering on the carport. He stated that he was able to install guttering without intruding on the neighboring property. Mr. Sharma asked for more time to meet with the neighboring property owner in the hope of obtaining his support. Staff suggested that the Board grant the second deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 27, 1998 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 27, 1998) The Chairman identified the item for presentation by staff. Richard Wood of staff offered a brief update on the matter. He stated for the record that the applicant had not prior to this meeting submitted the letter which was requested by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on June 29. Wood stated there was some indication from a board member prior to today's meeting that such a letter exists. This communication was to be presented today by the applicant. Wood closed his comments and the staff recommendation by restating that previously offered which is: staff opposes the approval of any variance with a zero side yard setback. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Vivek Sharma. Mr. Sharma is the applicant for this variance and he offered a lengthy explanation of his circumstances. He again restated why he constructed the carport in the manner that it is constructed. He also restated that his notice had been circulated to the neighborhood as required by the Board, receiving the signatures of the various owners and he had not observed any objection. Mr. Sharma presented to the Board of Adjustment a handwritten letter from the adjacent property owner. The signature on which indicates a 3 July 27, 1998 Item No.: A (Cont. Mr. Brady Chambers at 5013 Maryland Avenue stating that he had no objection to the carport as it was constructed. Mr. Sharma then moved to a lengthy explanation as to why he could not remove or modify the carport. He stated there was no way that he could move it because of the way it is constructed and the financial circumstance involved. To cut back the carport to a narrower structure would not serve his purpose because of the width of his vehicles. Mr. Sharma stated there are some utilities in the way and this might possibly be affected if he had to move the supporting poles for the carport. This would also interfere with the movement of a vehicle entering the carport. He would not have room to open the door of the car. At the conclusion of Mr. Sharma's presentation, the Chairman asked if there were questions by members of the Board. A question was posed by a board member as to whether or not Mr. Sharma still intended to modify the edge of the carport. Mr. Sharma indicated that was the case and it could be modified by the installation of guttering and downspouts to prevent water from running onto the neighboring property. He again restated his position relative to his inability to remove the structure because of the cost and the inconvenience involved. At this point, a board member raised a question to Mr. Sharma as to whether or not there was a fence between the properties. Mr. Sharma offered a brief history of the fence prior to his moving there and the fence modifications that he had made. A brief discussion then followed between Mr. Sharma and board members concerning the spacing between -the current fence and the carport and his ability or inability to back the supporting structures away from that fence. Mr. Sharma in response to another question by the board stated that, yes, he did place these supporting posts for the carport against the fence. A question was then posed to staff as to what the effect would be if the City accepted this letter from the adjacent property owner and then a future owner of the abutting lot determined that he had problem or did not agree with it. Staff responded by saying there should not be an effect. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's office, stated that once the board makes it determination based on the material at hand, then that is it. A future owner would not be involved in this decision. Wood of staff pointed out that this applicant would have some responsibility, if in the future, this carport dripped water on the adjacent land and created a drainage problem. It would be his responsibility to deal with that owner at that time. Wood stated that some future owner would not be bound by that letter in a circumstance where there were damages involved. The applicant then closed his relationship with his that he might do to make his remarks with neighbors and the the carport work. 4 a lengthy comment on things he thought At this point Cindy July 27, 1998 Item No.: A Cont. Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, stated staff had someone present from the Enforcement staff in case there was a question by the board. None of the board members responded to this statement. At this point, the Chairman stated he would call the question on the application before the Board. "This request is to give permission to construct the carport at the property line." A vote was then taken on the issue producing a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Gary Langlais). With follow- up action on this matter, Richard Wood of staff pointed out that the applicant has 30 days to appeal this action to the appropriate court of jurisdiction or to bring the structure into compliance which means meeting the required setback as required by ordinance. In response to a question from the applicant, Richard Wood stated the staff would provide written direction to the applicant later this week. A brief discussion then followed between the applicant and several board members concerning options that may be available to the applicant to simply move this improvement to the back yard and reconstruct it in the back yard as a freestanding carport. 5 wily 27, 1998 tem No.: A File NO. Owner Address: Descriptio Zoned• Variance Re ested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Repo : A. Public Works Issues: Z-6487 Dolly Moseley/Vivek Sharma 5017 Maryland Avenue East 43.8 feet of the West 90.47 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 10, Cunningham Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-255 to permit a carport addition with reduced side yard setback. Justification is presented by the applicant in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family Direct run-off away from adjacent property. Gutter and downspouts required. B. Staff Anal sis• The R-3 zoned property at 5017 Maryland Avenue is occupied by a small, single-family residential structure. The occupant of the home has recently constructed a carport addition onto the east side of the house. The addition has a side yard setback of 0 feet. Section 36-255 requires a side yard setback of 4.38 feet for this lot. The applicant has also constructed a privacy fence along the sides and rear property lines of the property. In response to a complaint about the fence, the code enforcement officer observed the newly constructed carport and issued a notice to the applicant for the side yard violation. Staff does have concerns about the carport as it is constructed. The structure has a shed -type roof, angling down toward the adjacent property. As the carport is now constructed, there is not room enough for guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. The house on the adjoining lot has a side yard setback of 4± feet, J'aly 27, 1998 Item No.: A (Cont.) _ resulting in a separation between structures of only 4± feet. Staff has taken a consistent position of opposing 0' setbacks between properties. Although we recognize the possible difficulty the applicant will have in modifying the carport, staff believes the potential negative impact on the adjoining property warrants such action. A side yard setback of 18 inches would allow for guttering, adequate separation between structures and would allow the applicant to work on the structure without having to enter the neighbor's property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback for the existing carport. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 18, 1998) The applicant, Vivek Sharma, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Sharma addressed the Board in support of his -application. He stated that he would cut back the structure's overhang and install guttering. Mr. Sharma stated that he felt he could make those modifications without encroaching on the neighbor's property. He also stated that -he could obtain a letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, suggested that the item be deferred to the June meeting and that the following two actions take place: 1. Mr. Sharma obtain the letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. 2. Officials from the City's zoning and building codes offices meet Mr. Sharma on the site to determine if the suggested modifications can be made to the carport. A motion was made to defer the item to the June 29, 1998 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Chuck Givens, City of Little Rock Building Codes Manager, met Mr. Sharma on the site and inspected the carport. Mr. Givens stated that he felt the overhang could be cut back and the carport modified so that it could accommodate guttering without extending 6 July 27, 1998 Item No.: A Cont. beyond the property line. Mr. Givens stated that the structure would then have a side yard setback of 0-2 inches. Staff's opinion regarding the reduced setback has not changed. BOARD OF ADL USTMENT (JUNE 29, 1998) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board of Mr. Givens' inspection of the property and of staff's continued opposition to a 0' setback. The applicant, Vivek Sharma, addressed the Board. He stated that he was having difficulty obtaining a letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property. Mr. Sharma stated that the adjacent property owner lived in Sherwood and was extremely busy because he was in the air conditioner installation business. Mr. Sharma stated that he had begun to install guttering on the carport. He stated that he was able to install guttering without intruding on the neighboring property. Mr. Sharma asked for more time to meet with the neighboring property owner in the hope of obtaining his support. Staff suggested that the Board grant the second deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 27, 1998 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 27, 1998) The Chairman identified the item for presentation by staff. Richard Wood of staff offered a brief update on the matter. He stated for the record that the applicant had not prior to this meeting submitted the letter which was requested by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on June 29. Wood stated there was some indication from a board member prior to today's meeting that such a letter exists. This communication was to be presented today by the applicant. Wood closed his comments and the staff recommendation by restating that previously offered which is: staff opposes the approval of any variance with a zero side yard setback. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Vivek Sharma. Mr. Sharma is the applicant for this variance and he offered a lengthy explanation of his circumstances. He again restated why he constructed the carport in the manner that it is constructed. He also restated that his notice had been circulated to the neighborhood as required by the Board, receiving the signatures of the various owners and he had not observed any objection. Mr. Sharma presented to the Board of Adjustment a handwritten letter from the adjacent property owner. The signature on which indicates a 3 July 27, 1998 Item No.: A (Cont. Mr. Brady Chambers at 5013 Maryland Avenue stating that he had no objection to the carport as it was constructed. Mr. Sharma then moved to a lengthy explanation as to why he could not remove or modify the carport. He stated there was no way that he could move it because of the way it is constructed and the financial circumstance involved. To cut back the carport to a narrower structure would not serve his purpose because of the width of his vehicles. Mr. Sharma stated there are some utilities in the way and this might possibly be affected if he had to move the supporting poles for the carport. This would also interfere with the movement of a vehicle entering the carport. He would not have room to open the door of the car. At the conclusion of Mr. Sharma's presentation, the Chairman asked if there were questions by members of the Board. A question was posed by a board member as to whether or not Mr. Sharma still intended to modify the edge of the carport. Mr. Sharma indicated that was the case and it could be modified by the installation of guttering and downspouts to prevent water from running onto the neighboring property. He again restated his position relative to his inability to remove the structure because of the cost and the inconvenience involved. At this point, a board member raised a question to Mr. Sharma as to whether or not there was a fence between the properties. Mr. Sharma offered a brief history of the fence prior to his moving there and the fence modifications that he had made. A brief discussion then followed between Mr. Sharma and board members concerning the spacing between -the current fence and the carport and his ability or inability to back the supporting structures away from that fence. Mr. Sharma in response to another question by the board stated that, yes, he did place these supporting posts for the carport against the fence. A question was then posed to staff as to what the effect would be if the City accepted this letter from the adjacent property owner and then a future owner of the abutting lot determined that he had problem or did not agree with it. Staff responded by saying there should not be an effect. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, stated that once the board makes it determination based on the material at hand, then that is it. A future owner would not be involved in this decision. Wood of staff pointed out that this applicant would have some responsibility, if in the future, this carport dripped water on the adjacent land and created a drainage problem. It would be his responsibility to deal with that owner at that time. Wood stated that some future owner would not be bound by that letter in a circumstance where there were damages involved. The applicant then closed his remarks with his relationship with his neighbors and the that he might do to make the carport work. 4 a lengthy comment on things he thought At this point Cindy July 27, 1998 Item No.• A Cont• Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, stated staff had someone present from the Enforcement staff in case there was a question by the board. None of the board members responded to this statement. At this point, the Chairman stated he would call the question on the application before the Board. "This request is to give permission to construct the carport at the property line." A vote was then taken on the issue producing a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Gary Langlais). With follow- up action on this matter, Richard Wood of staff pointed out that the applicant has 30 days to appeal this action to the appropriate court of jurisdiction or to bring the structure into compliance which means meeting the required setback as required by ordinance. In response to a question from the applicant, Richard Wood stated the staff would provide written direction to the applicant later this week. A brief discussion then followed between the applicant and several board members concerning options that may be available to the applicant to simply move this improvement to the back yard and reconstruct it in the back yard as a freestanding carport. 5