Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9034 Staff AnalysisMAY 18, 2015 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-9034 Owner/Applicant: Brett and Rebeka Bohn Address: 304 N. Pine Street Description: Lot 12, Block 1, Riffel and Rhoton's Ridgeland Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a carport addition with reduced side setback. 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. Buildina Cosies 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 building 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. C. Staff Analysis: sis: The R-3 zoned property located at 304 N. Pine Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. A one -car wide driveway from N. Pine Street is located at the northeast corner of the lot. The driveway extends along the north side of the residence. MAY 18, 2015 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T. The applicant recently constructed a small carport addition to the north side of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The carport is 10.5 feet by 17.4 feet in size, and is wood frame construction with a metal roof. The carport is located approximately 40 feet back from the front (east) property line and 3.2 feet from the north side property line. The carport is unenclosed on its north, east and west sides. Section 36-255(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing carport with a 3.2 foot side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The requested 3.2 side setback is a relatively minor issue. The carport structure is unenclosed on its north, east and west sides. The 3.2 foot side setback should allow adequate area for the structure to be maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the north. Staff feels that adequate separation will exist between the carport addition and the house immediately to the north, which is approximately five (5) feet back from the dividing side property line. Staff believes the proposed carport will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements, as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on its north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (May 18, 2015) Rebeka Davila was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present with concerns. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Ashley Koonce addressed the Board. She asked that the application be deferred so that she and her husband could review the issue. Rebeka Davila addressed the Board in support of the application. She briefly discussed the project. Staff noted that the notices to surrounding property owners were completed as required. Vice -Chairman Wingfield asked Ms. Davila if she would be willing to defer the application. Ms. Davila stated that it was difficult for her to miss work to attend meetings. She stated that she did not wish to defer. MAY 18, 2015 ITEM NO.- 2 (CON'T. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved.