HomeMy WebLinkAboutmmSEPTEMBER 21, 2023
ITEM NO. 2 Z-9730
File No.: Z-9730
Owners: Reddy Sanjeeva Onteddu & Sukanthi Kovvuru
Applicant: Hemachand Atluri — HRPG HOMES LLC
Address: 91 Orle Circle
Legal Description: Lot 44, Block 113 of Chenal an Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: R-2
Variance(s) Requested: A variance is requested from the building line regulations of
Sec. 31-12 to allow the encroachment of structure across a
platted building line.
A variance is requested area provisions of Section 36-156
to allow a retaining wall (accessory structure) with
a reduced side yard setback.
Present Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Single-family Residence
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented as per the attached
letter.
STAFF REPORT
B. Planninq and Development Civil Engineering Comments:
No Comments.
B. Buffering and Landscape Comments:
No Comments.
C. Building Codes Comments:
No Comments.
D. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located property at 91 Orle Circle is positioned on the south
side of the road and is being developed with a single-family residence adjacent to
similar R-2 zoned parcels that are either occupied by single-family residences or
undeveloped. The site's terrain is generally characterized as having a higher
elevation on the northwest side of the lot which steeply slopes to the southeast.
1
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
ITEM NO. 2 CON'T. Z-9730
The applicant is proposing to construct an accessary retaining wall structure along
the east, west, and south perimeters of the property to manage the significant grades
of the site bordering the adjacent lots.
The site plan shows a 9-foot-high retaining wall along the west side of the property
that will maintain the required 3-foot separation from the property but will cross the
platted front building line approximately 8-feet at the front of the residence and
decrease in height from 9-feet to 7-feet.
Section 31-12(b) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance states, "In those instances
where a recorded subdivision plat has established building setback lines in
accordance with this chapter variances of those lines shall only be granted by the
Board of Adjustment." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a
reduction of the 25-foot platted front building line to 8-feet on north (front) perimeter
of the site.
The site plan shows the retaining continuing along the south (rear) property line
maintaining the require 3-foot separation from the property line and then turn north
along the east side property line. The applicant is proposing to construct 10-foot-
high retaining wall at the property line along the east side of the lot.
Section 36-156(a)(2)(f) requires a minimum of 3-feet of separation between an
accessory structure and an adjacent property line. Therefore, the applicant requests
a variance to allow a minimum of 0-feet to construct the retaining wall on the east
(side) property line.
The applicant provided responses and additional documents including but not limited
to easement affidavits for adjacent property owners. To the staffs knowledge, there
are no outstanding issues.
Based on the above analysis, Staff is supportive of the reduced side yard setback
variance and the variance to allow the retaining wall to cross the front platted building
line. Staff believes the proposal requests are reasonable and are generally in
character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood regarding the slope of the
terrain.
E. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback reduction from 3-
feet to 0-feet and the requested platted front building line reduction from 25-feet to
a minimum of 8-feet as presented on the attached survey / site plan.
2
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
ITEM NO, 2 (CON'T.) Z-9730
Board of Adjustment
(SEPTEMBER 21, 2023)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application to the Board and stated it recommended approval of the requested rear yard
setback reduction and the easement encroachment variances per conditions within the
staff analysis and report. There was a consent motion to approve the application. The
motion was seconded. The application was approved on consent. The vote was 4 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
3