HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8985 Staff AnalysisOCTOBER 27, 2014
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8985
Owner: James W. and Meredith T. Hugg
Applicant: James W. Hugg
Address: 4605 Crestwood Drive
Description Lot 112, Cliffewood Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 to allow construction of a new residence with reduced side
and rear setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
n
C
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite
one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from
the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the
projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3)
feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than
three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior
wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 4605 Crestwood Drive is currently an undeveloped
single family lot. The property slopes downward from front to back (north to south).
OCTOBER 27, 2014
ITEM NO.: 8 ICON'T.
The lot is 60 feet wide and 122 feet deep. The lot contains a 25 foot front plated
building line.
The applicant proposes to construct a new two- story residence on the property, as
noted on the attached site plan. The residence will be two (2) stories as viewed
from Crestwood Drive, with a below grade garage/shop area. A driveway from
Crestwood Drive will run along the west side of the residence and access the lower
level garage. The proposed residence will be located 25 feet back from the front
property line, 24.2 feet back from the rear property line, 9.3 to 12.6 feet back from
the west side property line and three (3) feet back from the east side property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side
setbacks of six (6) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a
minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances
from these ordinance requirements to allow construction of a new single-family
residence with reduced side and rear setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested side and rear setback variances. Staff views
the request as reasonable. With respect to the reduced side setback, the applicant
is proposing to utilize a portion of the lot width for a driveway along the west side of
the building to access a lower level garage. This is based primarily on the
excessive slope of the lot, downward from front to back. The residence
immediately east and west of this site ware each located on two (2) platted lots.
Therefore, there will be ample separation between the proposed residence and
adjacent residences (50 feet +). Additionally, staff has no issues with the reduced
rear setback of 24.2 feet. Staff believes the proposed new residence with reduced
side and rear setbacks will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear setback variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph
B. of the staff report.
2. Guttering must be provided, if warranted by the roof slope, to prevent
water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(October 27, 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.