Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7109 Staff AnalysisNovember 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7109 Arthur V. Hope 2201 West Road Lot 124, Westover Hills Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and 36-156 to permit additions with reduced setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Install roof drains to avoid any water runoff to adjacent property. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2201 West Road is occupied by a one-story, frame single family residence and a one- story, detached frame garage. The applicant proposes to construct a 16.5 foot by 24 foot carport addition on the north end of the existing single family residential structure. The applicant proposes the carport addition to have a zero (0) setback along the north, side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 6.5 foot side yard setback for this lot. The applicant notes that the north, east and west sides of the proposed carport structure will be unenclosed, and that structure will November 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 have a pitched roof (east/west), with a gable extending from the existing structure. The applicant also proposes to construct a 12 foot by 11.5 foot building addition to the east side of the existing 12.3 foot by 21.2 foot detached garage. This building addition is also proposed to have a zero (0) setback along the side property line. The existing detached garage has a zero (0) side yard setback at the structure's northwest corner and extends across the property line by approximately one (1) foot at the northeast corner of the structure. Section 36- 156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum three (3) foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. The applicant is also proposing an 8 foot by 24 foot porch addition to the front of the existing single family structure. This proposed addition conforms to the minimum required setbacks and requires no variances. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not recommend zero (0) building setbacks along common lot lines in single family residential zoning. The main reason for staff's non-support is based on the fact that construction and maintenance of the carport structure and accessory building addition would cause encroachment onto the adjacent single family property. However, staff would support a revised application pulling the proposed carport structure and garage addition (including eave lines) back at least two (2) feet from the north, side property line. This would allow some area of the applicant's property to be devoted to the construction and maintenance of the structures. Staff would also suggest installing gutters on the structures, where necessary to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property. Staff has informed the applicant of this issue, but feels that the applicant would like to pursue the variances as requested. November 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested. Staff could recommend approval of side yard setback variances for the carport and garage additions subject to the following conditions: 1. Both structures (including eave lines) must maintain a minimum two (2) foot side yard setback. 2. Both structures must have gutters, where necessary to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. 3. The proposed carport addition must be unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant, Arthur Hope, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial as filed. Arthur Hope addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a letter of support from Jenny Hatcher, the property owner to the north, to the Board. He explained that drainage would not be a problem, as the property immediately north had a higher grade, which allowed water to drain onto his property. He also explained that he had maintained a small strip of the adjacent lot to the north for over 30 years. He noted that he had spoken to all of the neighbors within 200 feet, and none had any objections to the proposed construction. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Hope how he would maintain the proposed additions without encroaching onto the adjacent property. Mr. Hope noted that if the eaves of the structures were to extend to the property line, the structures could be maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property. Andrew Francis noted concern that the neighbor to the north would not own the property forever, and that the zero (0) 3 November 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 setback proposed could be a problem to a future owner of that adjacent property. Mr. Francis noted that he would have no problem with the zero (0) side yard setback if a construction/maintenance easement were dedicated on the lot to the north. He noted that the easement needed to be a minimum of two (2) feet in width. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck noted concern with the possibility of water run-off onto the property immediately to the north, and noted that the structures should have gutters. This issue was further discussed. Mr. Hope noted that the proposed roof slope (east/west) for the carport addition would not create water run-off onto the north property. There was additional discussion pertaining to the issue of a construction/maintenance easement being dedicated along the south line of the lot immediately north of Mr. Hope's property. Staff suggested moving the proposed addition to the accessory building back two (2) feet from the side property line. This issue was discussed. Mr. Francis noted that he had no problem with the zero (0) setback as proposed as long as a construction/maintenance easement was dedicated. Mr. Hope stated that he would withdraw the variance request for the addition to the accessory building. The Board accepted this revision to the application. There was a motion to approve the zero (0) side yard setback variance for the carport addition only, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum two (2) foot wide construction/maintenance easement, extending at least 10 feet east and west of the proposed carport addition, being dedicated (properly filed with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk Recorder's Office) prior to a building permit being issued. 2. The carport addition must be unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 4