HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7511-A Staff AnalysisDecember 6, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-751 1-A
NAME: Felton Accessory Dwelling — Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5324 Sherwood Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Daniel and Josephine Felton
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory dwelling/guest quarters
on this R-2 zoned lot.
SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the north side of Sherwood Road, west of
Harrison Street, in Prospect Terrace.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a residential neighborhood comprised solely of
large single-family residences on R-2 zoned lots. Many of -the properties
have similar accessory buildings and several have accessory dwellings or
guest homes. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Prospect Terrace and
Forest Park Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling each require one on-site
parking space. The property has an existing paved driveway with enough
room to accommodate the required parking. No additional parking is
proposed.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
December 6, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding possible meter
relocation.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: No Comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 1, 2007)
Chris Smith was present representing the applicants. Staff presented the item
and noted there. were no outstanding issues.
After reviewing the proposal, the Committee forwarded t he item to the full
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On October 30, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use
permit allowing the applicants to replace an existing, dilapidated accessory
structure with a new accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling.
They began working with an architect to finalize plans for the structure but failed
to obtain permits prior to the three-year authorization period expiring. The
applicants are.requesting approval of a C.U.P. to allow construction of a new
accessory building, containing an accessory dwelling or guest quarters.
The home is a two-story, Tudor -style, stucco and brick and frame house built in
1926 of approximately 3,300 square feet. The existing accessory building is a
wooden, one-story building of approximately 431.3 square feet with a front porch
of approximately 51 square feet. The accessory building was built to be used
partly as a "servant's quarters" and partly as a garage or for storage. At one
time, electricity, water, and sewage were connected to this building as evidenced
by a drain, sink, and shower in the "servant's quarters" bathroom and the
2
December 6, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -7511-A
exposed electrical wiring in the storage area. Currently, the building is falling
down: the roof is deeply sagging in the middle; a neighbor's tree is uprooting the
building's foundation and causing the building to lean forward; and the wooden
exterior is severely damaged from termite infestation and has holes and gaps.
The existing porch is also sagging and is dangerous to walk on.
The applicants propose to tear down the existing structure and replace it with a
one-story brick and siding structure in keeping with the house and neighborhood
style. This new accessory building will serve as a gardening room, guest's
quarters for occasional out-of-town guests and family members, and a tool
storage facility. It will include a half -bath in the gardening room and a full bath in
the guest room. The building will be approximately 616 square feet with roughly
fifty percent allotted to the guest's quarters. The building also will have a front
porch or patio area. The roof will slope to the north and south with gutters
installed. There are no separate utilities required for this building. The proposed
use and size is not out of character with other accessory buildings in Prospect
Terrace.
A variance is requested to allow use :of the existing footings, maintaining the side
yard setback of 1.3 feet on the east side. The code requires a setback of 3 feet.
A variance is also requested to allow -a: rear yard area coverage of 47%. The
code allows rear yard coverage of 3:0%o for accessory structures. Staff is
supportive of both variances. As previously noted, the size of the structure is not
out of character with others in the general area. The setback is the same as the
existing building. The new building's roof will slope north and south, with gutters
installed so that there will be no water runoff onto the neighbor's property to the
east.
The 1926 Bill of Assurance appears to still be in effect and includes the
following statements:
a) All plots in said addition shall be limited to single family residences.
b) No more than one residence: shall be erected on any plot in said addition.
The Commission approved this same request on October 30, 2003. That prior
approval expired three (3) years later, on October 30, 2006, since the applicants
had not obtained the required permits.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. What the applicants are constructing
is truly a guest quarters. There is no intent to create a separate dwelling that
could be rented as another home on the property. To staffs knowledge, there
are no outstanding issues.
3
December 6, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
FILE NO.: Z-751 1-A
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P., as filed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback and rear yard
area coverage variances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 6, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the "staff
recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed
on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
12