HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7847 Staff AnalysisJULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: B
File No.: Z-7847
Owner/Applicant: James Phillip Jaros
Address: 5425 Centerwood Road
Description: Lot 114, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions
of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory
structure with reduced setbacks and which encroaches into a utility easement.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Work Issues:
No Comments.
B. Utility Company Issues:
Little Rock Wastewater Utility: Little Rock Wastewater Utility agrees to
the variance subject to the following conditions:
1. That no permanent structure (Walls etc.) be built in place of the
awning.
2. That the awning is supported by 4 X 4's and not any type of
extensive foundation that may interfere with the existing sewer
main.
3. That in the future if the Utility is required to perform maintenance
on the existing sewer main you will remove and reinstall the
awning at your expense allowing the Utility to perform any
necessary work within the easement.
JULY 25, 2005
O.: B (CON'T
Entergy: Although we normally don't allow permanent structures within
our easements, in this case we will not require removal or modification.
Allowing this encroachment to remain, as currently placed and
constructed, is contingent on the following conditions:
1. No additional encroachments are placed within the easement at
the rear of your property.
2. The awning height is not modified such that the clearance to our
conductors is reduced.
3. Entergy is not liable for any damage to the structure within the
easement from falling material due to any reason including
maintenance activities.
Southwestern Bell: No objection to encroachment.
Central Arkansas Water: No Comments received.
Centerpoint Energy: No Comments received.
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5425 Centerwood Road is occupied by a
two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide
driveway from Centerwood Road which serves as access. A one-story
frame garage structure is located at the southeast corner of the
property. The garage structure was recently moved back approximately
15 feet on an existing slab, as approved by staff. There is a four (4) foot
wide utility easement along the rear (south) property line.
The applicant recently constructed an awning on the rear (south side) of
the garage structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The awning is
7 feet by 18 feet, and 8 feet in height. It was constructed using three (3)
4 X 4 posts and a shed roof. The awning structure is currently
unenclosed. The applicant has plans to screen in the structure.
The awning structure is located one (1) foot from the side (east) and
rear (south) property lines. Additionally, the accessory structure, with
awning, occupies approximately 35 percent of the required rear yard
(rear 25 feet of the lot). The awning structure also encroaches into the
four (4) foot wide utility easement by approximately three (3) feet.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows an
accessory structure to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required
rear yard area. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires minimum three (3) foot
side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings. Section 36-11(f)
requires that encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and
2
JULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the
awning structure.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Although the size of
the entire accessory structure is not out of character with the
neighborhood, staff has concerns with the structure occupying almost
the entire width of the utility easement and with the reduced setbacks.
Water run-off associated with the shed roof could adversely affect the
adjacent property. Staff feels that the awning structure as proposed is
inappropriate for the property. Staff suggests moving the awning
structure to the west side of the garage structure. This would eliminate
the need for any variances.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and easement
encroachment variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application
to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27,
2005
Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application
to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25,
2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005)
James Phillip Jaros was present, representing the application. There were
several persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of denial.
3
JULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.
James Phillip Jaros addressed the Board in support of the application. He
presented photos of the awning structure to the Board. He explained that he did
not realize he needed a variance when he constructed the awning structure. He
explained the drainage issues associated with the property. He described the
area of the utility easement. He stated that he would cut off the overhang on the
awning structure and install a gutter on its south side.
There was a brief discussion of the foundation under the awning structure. Mr.
Jaros explained that there was an existing slab under the structure.
The comments received from utility companies were briefly discussed.
Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about reducing the size of the awning structure to
the existing slab. This issue was briefly discussed.
Trudie Cromwell, of the Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board
in opposition. She expressed concerns with drainage, the structure being
located within an easement and the close proximity of the awning structure to the
adjacent accessory building to the south. She noted that several property
owners in the area were against the application.
Greg Lathrop, owner of the property immediately to the west, also addressed the
Board in opposition. He expressed concerns with drainage in the easement
area, water run-off and the possible fire hazard created by the structure. He
stated that the neighbors were not aware of the awning construction.
Stacy Hurst also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that the
neighborhood was typically not opposed to variances, but there was concerns
with this particular request. She urged Mr. Jaros to work with the neighborhood
on a possible compromise.
Mr. Jaros explained that he talked to the neighbors to the east and south prior to
construction of the awning structure. He noted that none of the neighbors had
expressed any concerns to him.
Mr. Lathrop described the properties to the south. He discussed the issue of
fencing between the adjacent properties.
Ellen Gray, property owner to the south, addressed the Board in opposition. She
discussed the issue of fencing between the two (2) properties.
Vice -Chairman Burruss noted that he could possibly support the awning structure
being located only over the existing concrete slab. There was a brief discussion
of the setback of the slab from the rear property line. Staff noted that the slab
was located no more than two (2) feet from the rear property line.
CI
JULY 25, 2005
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
Chairman Francis expressed concerns with the close proximity of the awning
structure to the adjacent accessory structure to the south, and the location of the
structure within the easement.
Mr. Jaros amended the application to move the awning structure back to the
existing concrete slab with an eight (8) inch overhang.
Chris Wilbourn expressed concerns with the structures close proximity to existing
power lines and explained. There was a brief discussion of the location of the
structure with relation to the rear property line.
There was a motion to approve the revised application. The motion was briefly
discussed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 open position.
The revised application was denied.
There was a brief discussion of allowing the applicant time to remove the awning
structure. The Board informed staff and Mr. Jaros that the awning structure
would need to be removed by the August 26, 2005 filing deadline, unless a new,
significantly different, application was filed.
5