HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5880 Staff AnalysisOctober 31, 1994
I
FileNNo .
Owner .
Address:
DesGriDtion•
Zoned:
Variance Recruested:
Justification:
Present Use of Provert.
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report -
A. Engineering issues:
None
S. Staff Analysis:
Z-5879
Jack Larrison
#16 Rocky Valley Cove
Lot 38, Pleasant Valley Manor
R-2
From the area regulations of
Section 36-254(d) to permit
construction of a new, single
family residence with a reduced
rear yard setback of 15 feet. The
Ordinance requires a rear yard
setback of 25 feet.
A 50 foot wide water line easement
crosses the front portion of this
property, limiting the buildable
area to the rear of the lot.
Vacant
Single-family residence
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, single
family residence on this R-2 zoned lot. The proposed
residence will have a reduced rear yard setback of 15 feet.
The Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet.
A 50 foot wide waterline easement crosses the front portion
of this lot, severely limiting the amount of buildable area
available.
A large area of 0-2 zoned property, occupied by the
Systematics campus, is located to the rear of this lot. A
single family home is located adjacent to the east. The
applicant will maintain the required side yard setback on
the east and will exceed the setback requirement on the
west.
October 31, 1994
Item No .: A ( Cont . )
The proposed rear yard variance should not have an impact
on any of the surrounding properties. Staff feels that
adequate justification for the variance exists and is
supportive of the request.
C. 2taff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 26, 1994)
(This item was discussed concurrently with Item No. 3, Z-5880.)
The applicant's representative, Pat McGetrick, was present.
There were several neighborhood residents present in opposition.
Staff presented both Items No. 2 and 3 with a recommendation of
approval. Letters representing 14 neighborhood homeowners in
opposition to the items had been presented to the Board during
the earlier agenda meeting.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant
was trying to build homes which are compatible with other homes
in the neighborhood but is limited on building area due to the 50
foot waterline easement which impacts both lots.
I
Tom Rystrom asked Mr. McGetrick what the proposed square footage
was for the homes.
Mr. McGetrick responded that the exact square footage was not
known but would be compatible with other homes in the
neighborhood.
In response to a request by Chairman Borchert, Richard Wood, of
the Planning Staff, gave a brief history on the platting of these
lots in Pleasant Valley Manor. He stated that these lots were
platted a bit larger than other lots in the subdivision to
accommodate the waterline easement and still leave room for a
reasonably sized house.
Don Smith, of #20 Rocky Valley Cove, addressed the Board in
opposition to the proposed variances. He noted the letters of
opposition from the neighborhood. Mr. Smith described the
existing condition of the neighborhood and stated that the
proposed rear yard variance for Lot 38 would infringe on the
privacy of the adjacent property.
2
October 31, 1994
Item No.: A Cont.
Chairman Borchert asked Mr. Smith if his objection was only to
the rear yard variance for Lot 38.
Mr. Smith responded that his objection was mostly to the rear
yard variance for Lot 38, but on behalf of the neighborhood, he
was also objecting to the building line waiver for Lot 39.
Tom Rystrom noted that houses constructed within the setbacks
would be considerably smaller than those proposed by the
applicant. He stated that building small homes on these lots
could have a greater negative impact on neighborhood home values
than allowing the requested variances.
Mr. Smith stated that he was not sure if homes compatible with
the neighborhood could ever be constructed on these lots. He
stated that he preferred having nothing built on either lot.
Chairman Borchert asked if the City had any mechanism in place to
assure compliance with Bills of Assurance.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that Bills of
Assurance are agreements between private parties and that the
City does not enforce any provisions of Bills of Assurance.
Chairman Borchert asked Mr. McGetrick if a one-story, 1800 square
foot house could be constructed within the setbacks on these
lots. '
Mr. McGetrick responded that it could possibly be done.
Aaron Lubin, of #19 Rocky Valley Cove, addressed the Board in
opposition to the requested variances. He stated that he agreed
with Mr. Smith's earlier assessment of the effect of the
variances on the neighboring properties.
Glenn Spung, of #24 Rocky Valley Cove, addressed the Board in
opposition to the variances. He asked the Board to take notice
of the number of neighborhood residents present in opposition.
Mr. Spung stated that he bought his property based on the
subdivision's Bill of Assurance and the security it offered. He
concluded by asking the Board to protect the neighborhood and
uphold the setback standards established within the subdivision's
Bill of Assurance.
At Chairman Borchert's request, Mr. Spung presented him with a
copy of the Bill of Assurance. Chairman Borchert read from the
section pertinent to setbacks. He then asked the Assistant City
Attorney present if approving the requested variances would
resolve the Bill of Assurance issues.
3
October 31, 1994
Item No.: A Cont._)
Cindy Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, responded that it would
not.
The applicant, Jack Larrison, addressed the Board. He stated
that he wanted to construct homes of a size comparable to other
homes in the neighborhood but that he could build small homes
within the confines of the setbacks.
Chairman Borchert asked if it were possible to reduce the 50 foot
waterline easement.
Mr. McGetrick stated that he had approached the Little Rock Water
Works about that possibility and was told that it was not
possible.
Tom Rystrom asked if it was possible for the applicant and the
neighbors to reach an agreement regarding the requested
variances.
Chairman Borchert stated that the Board was willing to defer the
items to allow time for discussions between the two sides.
Mr. Spung asked if the neighborhood residents could have a few
minutes to discuss the issue among themselves.
The meeting recessed for approximately 10 minutes as the
neighborhood residents met in the hallway, outside the Board
room.
The neighbors returned to the room and stated that they were
agreeable to a deferral to allow further discussion with the
applicant to take place.
Mr. McGetrick stated that the applicant was agreeable with a
deferral and would set up a meeting with the neighborhood.
A motion was made to defer both Items 2 (Z-5879) and 3 (Z-5880)
to the October 31, 1994 Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 31, 1994)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that
this item be withdrawn.
A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved
by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
4