Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9191 Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 27, 2017 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-9191 Owner/Applicant: Kevin W. Hunt Address: 6 Valley Forge Drive Description: Lot 134, Pebble Beach Park Addition 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 an unenclosed porch 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: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 6 Valley Forge Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the north side of Valley Forge Drive, east of Valley Park Drive. A two -car wide driveway from Valley Forge Drive is located at the southeast corner of the lot. The driveway serves a two -car garage at the east end of the residence. The lot contains a 25 foot platted front building line. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 38 foot porch on the front of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed porch addition will be unenclosed on its east, west and south sides. The proposed porch will be located 15.6 feet back from the front (south) property line, and maintain the same 9.6 foot side (west) setback as the existing house. The proposed porch will cross the 25 foot front platted building line by 9.4 feet. The existing house currently has no front porch, only a small uncovered concrete stoop. The applicant notes that the new front porch is needed to provide easier access to the residence based on medical issues. FEBRUARY 27, 2017 ITEM NO.:- A (CON'T.) Z-9191. 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. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the porch addition with reduced front setback and which crosses a front platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff feels that support cannot be given based on the existing front setbacks for the other residences to the east and west, along this side of Valley Forge Drive. Staff believes that the proposed encroachment for the new porch will be too much out of character with this immediate area, and could provide an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. 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 (January 30, 2017) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the February 27, 2017 agenda, based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notifications to surrounding property owners. A motion was made to defer the application to the February 27, 2017 agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (February 27, 2017) Kevin Hunt was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Kevin Hunt addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the house had no covered porch and there had been past problems with rain and sun with respect to the front door area. He explained that the back yard sloped downward and that the proposed porch would provide an outdoor use space. He further described the proposed porch addition. 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2017 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Z-9191 Carolyn Lindsey -Polk noted that she was not opposed to the porch addition, but asked if the porch could be narrowed to 8.5 to nine (9) feet. The issue of porch width was further discussed. Frank Allison asked if the porch addition would make access to the house better. Mr. Hunt explained that it would. Chairman Yates asked about a neighborhood association and bill of assurance. Mr. Hunt noted that there was no neighborhood association and he was not familiar with the bill of assurance. Mr. Hunt explained that he had talked to all of the immediate neighbors about the porch addition. There was a brief discussion regarding the required replat. There was also brief discussion regarding the porch width. There was a motion to approve the front setback and building line variances, subject to completion of a replat. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. 3