Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8785-A Staff AnalysisJUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8785-A Michael and Kelly McQueen 7 Ken Circle Lot 2 and part of Lots 1 and 3, Rock Hill Addition Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition which crosses a platted building line and building additions with reduced side setbacks. 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 7 Ken Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Ken Circle at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes upward from the roadway. The property contains a front platted building line ranging from 27.9 feet to 50 feet back from the front (west) property line. There is an existing eight (8) foot high wood fence along a portion of the north side property line. On July 30, 2012, the Board of Adjustment approved building line variances for two (2) additions to the front of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan labeled "previous approval". A garage addition with a front setback ranging from 26 to 29 feet was approved at the front, northwest corner of the residence. A room addition with a front setback ranging from 38 to 44 feet was approved at the front, southwest corner of the residence. The additions were to be one-story in height. Since that time, the applicants have determined that the driveway is too steep to access the garage addition as previously designed. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to construct a one-story (side -loading) garage at the front southwest corner of the house, as noted on the attached site plan labeled "current proposal". The proposed garage addition will be located 30 to 36 feet back from the front property line, encroaching across the front platted building line by 4.4 to 8.7 feet. The garage addition will have a side setback ranging from 5.9 to 6.5 feet. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 3 ICON'T. The applicants are also proposing a one-story room addition at the rear, southeast corner of the residence, also noted on the attached site plan. This addition will be approximately 1,000 square feet in area, with a side setback ranging from 5.9 to eight (8) feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the garage addition with a reduced side setback and front building line encroachment, and the room addition with a reduced side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested building line and side setback variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The City's Zoning Ordinance typically requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots, unless a platted building line requires a greater setback, which is the case with the subject property. The proposed garage addition would comply with the ordinance required typical front setback. The curvature of the roadway along the front property line will aid in the property not having an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. The houses along Ken Circle have varying setbacks from their respective front property lines. The front setback for the proposed garage ranges from 30 to 36 feet. The Board previously approved a front setback ranging from 26 to 29 feet. The condition of this area has not changed since the 2012 approval. Therefore, staff continues to believe that the proposed additions with building line and side setback variances will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Adequate separation will exist between the proposed additions and the residence to the southeast. 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 garage 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 completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. Kelly & Michael McQueen a741-, 4 3 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 580-3291 May 15, 2014 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re. Cover Letter to Application for Variance - 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 To Whom It May Concern: Attached please find the completed Application for Zoning Variance for 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas, requesting the Board of Adjustment grant variance(s) to allow the construction of a two car garage with associated driveway, master bedroom addition, and a retaining wall and fence ("proposed project"); all of which are associated with a remodel of the home located on the property, which is zone R2 and subject to platted restrictions. Also attached, as part of the application, are six (6) copies of a recent survey prepared and stamped by a professional surveyor showing the existing and proposed improvements. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment has approved applications for variances for this residence (and same owners) on two previous occasions, the projects for which were never constructed: (1) 9 / 27 / 2004 (Case No. Z-7714): The Board approved the application for variance (with the condition of a replat) from the platted front building line for a garage construction project very similar to the proposed project; and (2) 7/30/2012 (Case No. Z-8785): The Board approved the application for variance (with conditions) from the front building line and the maximum fence height restrictions. We request variances to the platted front building line and zoned fence height restriction (if required). The requested variances are necessary and warranted for the following reasons: Garage Addition with associated concrete driveway): 1. The current property does not have a carport or garage; thus requiring vehicles to be parked, without cover, on the driveway or on 1 the street. Due to the relatively narrow lot configuration, it is not possible to locate a garage in the rear of the home. 2. A previous garage design (the subject of Case No. Z-8785 Variance) proved to be unworkable due to the steep slope and "top -off" of the drive. The current design (very similar to the project granted a variance in Case No. Z-7714) is intended to avoid the drive -slope issues as well as provide our children a large, level play area in the front of the house. The current garage addition design also allows for a laundry room and a much -needed heated & cooled storage area. 3. The platted front building line is excessively deep, exceeding 50 feet in the area of the proposed garage addition. City ordinance (Section 36-254(d)(1)) typically requires only a 25 foot front setback for single family residential structures. As shown on the survey and site plan, the proposed garage addition would be built greater than 25 feet from the front property boundary and street. 4. The associated new concrete driveway would merely replace the existing concrete driveway. 5. The distance between the street and the proposed garage addition would be consistent with or greater than that for other homes on the Ken Circle cul-de-sac as well as those in the Normandy neighborhood. Master Bedroom and Bath Addition: 1. As our family has grown, it became apparent that an additional bedroom and bath would be necessary for us to stay in the home. 2. Previously we'd understood that adding this addition in the rear was not possible due to likely damage to a particularly large and beautiful oak tree in the backyard. However, with the advice of an arborist, we have developed a plan that will allow the addition while preserving the tree. 3. It does not appear that any variance is required for this piece of the project. Left Side Retaining Wall and Fence: 1. On the left side of the home (along the left interior property line), there is an existing loose rock retaining wall that is neither functional nor aesthetically -pleasing. We propose to replace that wall with an excavated block wall that will provide greater access to the side of the home, improve the appearance of that area, and allow enhanced use of that side of the property. 2. The new wall will not exceed four (4) feet in height. 3. At the top of the existing retaining wall on the interior left property line and extending for the length of the property commiserate to the home is an 8 foot wooden fence. Due to the topography, it appears to be only 6 foot high as viewed from the adjacent neighbor's property. We propose to remove the existing fence and either reuse it or replace it with a similar structure. 4. This fence is the subject of the variance in Case No. Z-8785. In the event we needed to "renew" or otherwise again receive a variance for this work with the fence, we include it in this application/ explanation. We ask that the Board grant the requested variance(s) to provide enhanced, but reasonable, use of our property and existing home. The proposed improvements will not be out of character with other similar structures in the area nor will they have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area, visually or otherwise. We understand that if the Board approves the building line variance, we will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the addition and will review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns or require further information. Sincerely, A�FAC�a- Michael McQueen Kelly McQueen 3