HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6723 Staff AnalysisAugust 30, 1999
Item No.: 3
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance ReVested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Pro ert :
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6723
Ed and Laurine Williams
#1 Amherst Cove
Lot 77R, Shannon Hills East
R-2
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the accessory building
area and separation provisions of
Section 36-156 to permit
construction of an accessory
building with reduced setbacks and
separation and which is built
across platted building lines.
This unusually shaped lot is
impacted by two building lines and
a limited buildable area, requiring
variances to allow the structure.
Single Family
Single Family
Sight distance problems at the corner of Amherst Cove and
Hughes Street. Recommend denial.
B. Staff Analvsis:
The R-2 zoned property located at #1 Amherst Cove is
occupied by a one-story, frame, single family residence.
The triangle shaped property is located at the southwest
corner of Amherst Cove and N. Hughes Street. The applicant
proposes to construct a 20 feet X 28 feet detached garage
structure, north of the house, at the "point" of the
property. The structure will be built across a platted 25
August 30, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
foot building line on the Hughes Street side and across a
platted 16 foot building line on the Amherst Cove side. The
building will have a setback of 5 feet from the Hughes
Street property line and 10± feet from the Amherst Cove
property line. The required setbacks for accessory
structures are 60 feet from the front property line (Amherst
Cove) and 15 feet from the Hughes Street property line,
although the latter is superceded by the 25 foot building
line. The building is proposed to have a separation of 1±
foot from a deck located on the north side of the house.
The code requires a separation of 6 feet.
The 25 foot building line on Hughes Street corresponds to a
25 foot AP&L (Entergy) easement. A copy of the application
was sent to Entergy for their review of the proposed to
build across the easement. As of this writing, no response
has been received. It appears a high-voltage power line is
located overhead, in the area of the easement.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances.
Locating the structure at the "point" of the property will
create a sight distance problem for vehicles accessing
Hughes Street from Amherst Cove. Additionally, vehicles
backing out of the garage will create potential problems for
traffic on Hughes Street. The property is located near the
crest of a hill, with limited visibility for vehicles
travelling Hughes Street. The structure would appear to be
out of character with other development in the area. No
other properties in the area have structures located so
close to the street. Finally, there is the outstanding
issue of the 25 foot AP&L (Entergy) easement. Although no
response has been received as of this writing, staff
believes it is doubtful that approval will be given to build
over the easement.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variances as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 30, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
2
August 30, 1999
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
The applicant, Ed Williams, addressed the Board in support of his
application. He described the conditions of the property and
stated that the proposed garage would not create any more of a
sight distance problem than does the existing vegetation on the
site. Mr. Williams stated that he recognized that the garage was
out of character for the area but that his is an a typical lot
and should be treated differently. He stated that he would
accept as a condition of approval, Entergy's approval of building
in the easement.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Williams stated
that the garage could not be put on the south side of the lot due
to structural constraints and the terrain of the lot.
Mr. Williams commented that traffic on Hughes Street was not as
fast since the City put speed humps in the street.
Norm Floyd commented that he had visited the site and had
observed first hand the sight distance concerns mentioned by
staff. He noted that sight distance was already difficult due to
the vegetation on the site.
Gary Langlais stated that his concerns were the amount of the
structure that is proposed to be built across the building lines
and the presence of the Entergy easement on Hughes Street.
William Ruck asked the applicant if he had considered an open
carport rather than an enclosed garage. Mr. Williams responded
that he had but that he would prefer an enclosed structure to
better protect his vehicles from vandalism.
Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, re-emphasized the sight distance
problem.
William Ruck asked the applicant if the garage could be done as
an addition to the house, pulling more of the structure behind
the building line and away from the street. Mr. Williams
responded that he would prefer not to do so since it would result
in the removal of several trees.
The Chairman called the question on the variance request, as
filed. The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The variance
request was denied.
3