HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8201 Staff AnalysisMAY 21, 2007
ITEM NO.: C
File No.: Z-8201
Owner: Nuage Residential Contractors
Applicant: James McDaniel
Address: 16 Fawn's Point
Description: Lot 51, Block 3, Deer Meadow Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow construction of a new
residence with reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Lot
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 16 Fawn's Point Cove is currently an undeveloped
single family lot which has been cleared in preparation of new home
construction. The property slopes downward slightly from front to back (south
to north). There is a rather wide drainage ditch which runs along the rear
property line. The ditch is approximately 15 feet wide as measured from top of
slope to top of slope. The single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted
building line.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story single family residence on the
lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The majority of the front wall of the
structure will cross the front platted building line, ranging from a few inches to
five (5) feet. The nearest portion of the structure will be 20 feet back from the
MAY 21, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.)
front property line. The applicant has noted that the proposed residence has
been moved toward the front property line because of the slope of the property
in conjunction with the drainage ditch along the rear property line. The
applicant is attempting to maximize an area for the rear yard. All other building
setbacks conform to ordinance standards.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residence with a
reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the issues of topography
and drainage associated with this lot, staff feels the requested variances are
reasonable. The lot is located within the bulb of a cul-de-sac street. Because
of this, the reduced front setback will not have the appearance of being out of
alignment with other adjacent structures along the street. Staff believes the
proposed residence with reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line
for the new residence. 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 variances, subject to completion
of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as
approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2007)
The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to
the May 21, 2007 agenda.
A motion was made to defer the application to the May 21, 2007 agenda. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2007)
Don Williams was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
MAY 21, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (CON
James Van Dover asked about the location of the ditch in the rear yard area. Mr.
Williams described the ditch area and presented a drawing of the lot indicating the
location of the ditch. He noted that the ditch extended outside the rear 10 foot
easement and into the rear yard area. This issue was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was
approved.