Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7031 Staff Analysis.May 21, 2001 Item No.: 6 File No.: Z-7031 Owner: Robert Alvey Address: 7515 Fairways Drive Description: Lot 2, Fairways Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Re ested: A variance is requested from Section 36-11 to permit construction of an accessory building within an easement. Justification: The applicant was unaware of the prohibition. Additional information is provided in an attached letter. Present Use of Proper: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7515 Fairways Drive is occupied by a single family residence and a deteriorating accessory structure. The applicant began construction of a new accessory building with the intent of razing and removing the old building once the new one was complete. The new accessory building complies with all applicable zoning regulations, with one exception. It is located partially in an easement. The applicant had not obtained a building permit and was stopped by the City. When a survey was presented, it was evident that a portion of the new structure is located over the 35 foot easement that encumbers a large portion of the rear yard. Section 36-11 of the code prohibits construction within an easement. The 'May 21, 2001 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) applicant was advised to obtain approval from the public utility companies and to file for a variance. Approval has been given b Water Works, Wastewater, Energy Arkla. As of this approval. The 35 foot ea lines and a substantial d structure in the area of once the new building is removed. Staff believes the utility companies and the easement. If approva utility company, Entergy, removed or relocated. St the Public Works Department, >outhwestern Bell and Reliant writing, Entergy has not given cement does contain overhead power :ainage ditch. The amount of :he easement will actually be less :onstructed and the old building is :he proposal is reasonable, however Public Works have first right to L is not received from the final the structure will have to be iff believes it is appropriate to approve the variance subject to approval neing granzeu ruy all utility companies. If the approval has not occurred by the time of the Board hearing, a reasonable length of time should be granted to allow the applicant to continue working with Entergy. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions: 1.Approval for the structure must be granted by all utility companies within 60 days of the Board's action. Failure to receive such approval will result in the City instituting action to cause removal of the building. 2. If all approvals and permits are received, the existing, old accessory building must be completely removed from the property upon completion of the new building. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2001) The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Robert Alvey addressed the Board and apologized for having created the situation by not first applying for a building permit. He stated his only intent was to replace a dilapidated structure with a new one. Mr. Alvey stated he was getting mixed FA May 21, 2001 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) messages from Entergy; messages of approval or of a requirement to relocate either the power lines or the structure. William Ruck asked Mr. Alvey if the staff recommended 60 days to resolve the issue was sufficient. Mr. Alvey responded that it was. Mr. Ruck and Norm Floyd both expressed concern that 60 days might not be adequate to resolve the matter. Each stated that a longer period might be needed. Kareen Cooper, of 5001 Western Hills, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern that the 'structure had been built too close to the property line and was in the way of utility company access through the easement. Mr. Cooper stated he had lost his view of the golf course because of the construction of the building. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the structure met or exceeded all required zoning setbacks and height regulations. William Ruck asked if the building could be moved out of the easement. Mr. Alvey responded that the structure was 90% complete. Gary Langlais asked the purpose of the building. Mr. Alvey responded that it would be used to store an ATV and a utility trailer. He stated a portion of the building would also contain his hobby/woodworking shop. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to compliance with the conditions proposed by staff, with the 60 days suggested in condition No. 1 to be changed to 90 days. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 August 27, 2001 Item No.: 7 Name: Address: Robert Alvey 7515 Fairways Drive Type of Issue: Time Extension Staff Re ort: On May 21, 2001, the Board approved a variance to allow an accessory structure to remain in an easement on the R-2 zoned property at 7515 Fairways Drive. The applicant had begun construction without a permit and had been stopped by Code Enforcement. The building complies with zoning setback and area coverage requirements (once the older accessory building is removed). Since the structure had been built within an easement, approval was needed from Public Works and the Public Utility Companies. All of these entities signed -off except Entergy. The applicant stated he was working with the power company to gain their approval but had not completed those negotiations at the time of the May board meeting. The Board's approval included allowing the applicant 90 days to gain approval from the utility company or to remove the building. That approval has not been received. The applicant is requesting an extension of time as he continues to work with the Utility. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of a 30 -day extension. The applicant offered no additional comments. The issue was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for a 30 -day extension. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.