Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8541 Staff AnalysisAPRIL 26, 2010 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8541 Owner: R.L. Jones Construction Co. Applicant: Rick Jones Address: 11024 Shenandoah Drive Description: Lot 15, Shenandoah Addition, Phase II Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow porch and deck additions with reduced front and rear setbacks and a porch/step addition which crosses a platted building line. 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 A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 11024 Shenandoah Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide driveway from Shenandoah Drive which serves as access. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. When the house was constructed, the two-story front porch/balcony portion of the structure was built approximately three (3) feet across the front platted building line, with a front setback of approximately 22 feet. The porch/balcony portion is covered and unenclosed. An uncovered/unenclosed step structure extends from the porch, with a front setback of approximately 18 feet. There is also a small six (6) foot wide wood deck (uncovered and unenclosed) which is located approximately 19 feet back from the rear (west) property line. The deck structure is approximately two (2) feet above grade. The rear wall of the house is 25 feet back from the rear property line. APRIL 26, 2010 ITEM: NO.: 7 (Can't. Section 36-254(d)(1) and (3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet and a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the wood deck with a reduced rear setback and the front porch/balcony with a reduced front setback and which crosses the platted building line. The applicant, Rick Jones, notes that the property had been foreclosed on, and that he purchased the property from the bank unaware of the existing encroachments. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The front encroachment is minimal enough that the structure does not have the appearance of being that much out of alignment with the fronts of other structures along Shenandoah Drive to the north. The lots immediately to the south are undeveloped. The deck on the rear of the house is a small structure (6 feet by 11 feet) which is not visible from the adjacent property to the west due to a screening fence. Both structures are unenclosed which will help lessen the impact of the encroachments on adjacent properties. Staff believes the existing encroachments will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the porch/balcony addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The front porch/balcony section of the residence must remain unenclosed. 3. The rear deck section of the residence must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as noted 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.