Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9758 Staff Report File No.: Z-9758 Owners: Chattanya Musham Applicant: Markus Homes Inc – Melinda Markus Address: 93 Orle Circle Legal Description: Lot 43, Block 113, Chenal Valley, an addition to the City of Little Rock Zoned: R-2 Present Use: Single-family Residence Proposed Use: Single-family Residence Variance(s) Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of 36-156 to allow a retaining wall (accessory structure) with reduced setbacks from side and rear yard property lines. Justification: The applicant’s justification is presented in an attached letter dated January 12, 2023. STAFF REPORT: Planning and Development Civil Engineering Comments: Plans reviewed during building permit. Landscape and Buffer Comments: No Comments C. Building Codes Comments: No comments required. D. Staff Analysis: The site at 93 Orle Circle contains and recently constructed single-family dwelling with a paved access drive extending north to Orle Circle. The lot has been mostly cleared and slopes downward from east to west. The applicant also proposes to construct a forty-two (42) inch high masonry wall starting at the northeast edge of the dwelling and proceed east twenty-seven (27) feet to the eastern property line. The masonry wall then proceeds south along the eastern perimeter of the property to the south property line. The applicant proposes to construct an additional retaining wall (accessory structure) which will be offset to the west three (3) feet from the east property line. The retaining wall (accessory structure) will extend from north to south along the eastern side of the property to the south property line and proceed on the property line west one-hundred twenty feet (120) to the west property line. Section 36-156(f) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance states, “accessory buildings shall maintain at least a three (3) foot setback from any side or rear yard property line except where said rear yard abuts on a dedicated alley. No setbacks shall be required for an accessory building upon an alley.” Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the retaining wall, which is considered an accessory structure, with reduced rear and side yard setback. The applicant provided responses and additional information to all issues raised during the staff’s review of the application. To the staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. Staff is supportive of the reduced rear and side yard setback variances. The wall will be located along the eastern and southern perimeters of the property adjacent to the open tract, and staff views this request as minor in nature and feels that the reduced rear and side yard setbacks will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the descriptions and any conditions in the “staff analysis,” and the following conditions: A building permit being obtained for all construction. Abide by all site development requirements for R-2 zoned properties. Board of Adjustment (MARCH 16, 2023) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application to the Commission and stated it recommended deferral of a variance request from the area provisions of 36-156 to allow a retaining wall (Accessory structure) with reduced setbacks from side and rear yard property lines. There was a consent motion to defer the application. The application was deferred on consent. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Board of Adjustment (APRIL 20, 2023) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application to the Board and stated it recommended consent deferral of the application to the May 18, 2023, agenda as there is additional information needed to review of the application. The applicant asked what additional information is required. Staff reported the drawings submitted are not sufficient per the in-house engineer and that the walls need to be re-engineered. Staff suggested that the applicant meet with the staff engineer. There was a motion to defer the application. The application was deferred on consent. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.