HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6855 Staff AnalysisJuly 31, 2000
Item No.: A
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Propert
Staff Re ort :
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6855
Daniel Clayton
5500 Pinnacle Valley Road
Lot "A", Berg Subdivision
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
permit a reduced front yard
setback.
The house is existing. The survey
used to construct the house
incorrectly indicated the building
line measured from the previous
right-of-way and did not account
for right-of-way dedication.
Single Family
Single Family
A one-story, brick and frame, single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned property located
at 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road. The home was built with a
front yard setback of 15± feet and has been built across a
35 foot platted building line. The Code requires a 25 foot
front yard setback in the R-2 district. Variances are
requested to accommodate the existing residence.
July 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
The hardship presented for the variances is obvious in that
the only other option is to remove a portion of the
residence. This .75 acre lot was platted in 1998 when an
11.7-6 acre tract was subdivided into 2 lots. Pinnacle
Valley Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial street and a 20 foot right-of-way dedication
was required to bring the right-of-way to 45 feet from the
centerline. Section 31-256(2) requires residential lots
fronting on a minor arterial street to have a building line
of not less than 35 feet from the right-of-way line. The
preliminary plat and the final plat for this lot were
approved with the appropriate right'_ and building
line. Subsequently, a building permit was applied for to
construct a single family residence on the lot. The survey
submitted for the building permit was prepared by a
different firm than that one which prepared the plat.
Unbeknownst to all parties, the survey submitted for the
building permit measured all setbacks and the 35 -.foot
building line from the old right-of-way and did not take
into account the additional 20 feet of right-of-way
dedication. All clearances, permits and inspections were
made based on the erroneous survey. The error was not
discovered until after the house was constructed and an as -
built survey was prepared. Fortunately, only a relatively
small portion of the house is built across the platted
building line. The home's garage is located behind the
building line and is side -loaded, so that vehicles do not
back directly out of the structure into the right-of-way.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. 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 approval of the requested setback, and
building line variances subject to a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not completed the
2
July 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
required notices and had requested that the item be.deferred to
the June 26, 2000 meeting.
The itern-_was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 261 2000 meeting. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral to the July 31, 2000 meeting due to ongoing discussions
between the builder, engineer and property owner.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31; 2000)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat reflecting
the change in the Building Line.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3