Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9169 Staff AnalysisSEPTEMBER 26, 2016 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-9169 Owner/Applicant: James Perkins Address: 10123 Independence Lane Description: East side of Independence Lane, south of Drexel Avenue 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 a carport addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a front 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: The 2nd vehicle stacked behind the carport will extend into the public right-of-way. The smallest building setback is 20 ft. from the property line. B. Staff Analvsis: The R-2 zoned property at 10123 Independence Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the east side of Independence Lane, south of Drexel Avenue. A two -car wide driveway from Independence Lane is located at the northwest corner of the lot. A two -car wide garage which originally existed at the northwest corner of the residence was enclosed for additional living space some time in the past. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant recently constructed a metal carport addition to the front of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The carport addition is 17.5 feet by 18 feet in size. It is located approximately seven (7) feet back from the front (west) property line, crossing the 25 foot front platted building line by approximately 18 feet. The proposed carport addition is located approximately 15 feet back from the north side property line. The carport addition is unenclosed on its west (front) side and partially unenclosed on its north and south sides. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front 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. SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Therefore, the applicant is allow the building addition platted building line. requesting variances from these ordinance standards to with reduced front setback and which crosses a front Staff does not support the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. Staff believes that the proposed front encroachment is out of character with the neighborhood. There are no similar encroachments north or south of the property along Independence Lane. Staff also knows of no similar front encroachments along Republic Lane to the west. Staff believes that the proposed carport addition with reduced front setback and building line encroachment has a negative visual impact on the adjacent properties and the overall neighborhood. 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 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 denial of the requested front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (September 26, 2016) James Perkins was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. James Perkins addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the carport was needed to protect his vehicle from the elements. He noted that the original garage was enclosed due to his large family. He noted that there were similar carports on Drexel Avenue. He explained that the carport was not out of character with the neighborhood. Carolyn Lindsey -Polk asked if the carport could be placed in the side yard area. Mr. Perkins noted that there was not enough space. Chairman Yates asked if it could be locate in the rear yard area. Mr. Perkins stated that it could not because of existing trees. Mr. Perkins presented photos to the Board. There was a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied. There was a second motion to allow Mr. Perkins 30 days to remove the carport structure. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. F)