Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8858 Staff AnalysisMAY 20, 2013 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Jesse Joe and Amanda Gibson Andrew V. Francis, P.A. 5801 Edgewood Road Outlot A-2, Prospect Terrace No. 3 Addition M Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254, building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow construction of a new residence with reduced front setback, building line encroachment and easement encroachment. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comment. B. Utility Comments: Entergy — No facilities within easement. No objection to encroachment. Central Arkansas Water — Based on location of water line in the easement CAW can only allow a variance of up to 10 feet; 5 feet of which can be granted inside the easement. Little Rock Wastewater — No objection to easement encroachment. CenterPoint Energy — No objection to easement encroachment. AT&T — No comment/letter received. C. Staff Analysis.' The R-2 zoned property at 5801 Edgewood Road is currently in the process of being prepared for construction of a new residence. The lot is located near the south end of Edgewood Road. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line and a 20 foot wide utility easement along the front (west) property line. Smaller MAY 20, 2013 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T_ easements are located along the other property lines. The property slopes upward from front to back (west to east). The elevation along the rear (east) property line is approximately 40 feet higher than the front (west) property line. A retaining wall has been constructed within the west (rear) half of the property and along the north side property line. The retaining wall is approximately 15 feet high 'at its highest point (near Its rear writer). The area belvV I[ the retaining vvaii and the street has been leveled for the new construction. The leveled area is approximately five (5) to six (6) feet above the elevation of the roadway. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will be located 15 to 17 feet back from the front (west) property line, extending across the front platted building line by eight (8) to ten (10) feet. The residence also encroaches into the front utility easement by three (3) to five (5) feet. The proposed residence will be located at least 15 feet from all other property lines. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-11(f) requires that easement encroachments also be reviewed and approved by the Board. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residence with reduced front setback and building line and easement encroachments. Staff is supportive of the requested front setback, building line and easement variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed residence will be the only residence on the east side of this stretch of Edgewood Road, south of Wildwood Road. Most of the residences along the west side of the roadway have similar reduced front setbacks because of the excess slope downward from front to back. The proposed front setback will not be out of character with this immediate area. The subject property has excess slope from front to back. Pulling the house closer to the front property line will allow some rear yard area without pushing the retaining wall closer to the adjacent single family properties to the east and north. As of this writing, the applicant and staff are awaiting a letter from AT&T addressing the proposed easement encroachment. Staffs support is based on approval from AT&T. None of the other utilities object to the easement encroachment. 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 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. MAY 20, 2013 ITEM NO.: 5 CON'T. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, building line and easement variances, subject to the following cof fuufof fa. 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. A letter from AT&T approving the easement encroachment must be provided. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (May 20, 2013) Andrew Francis, Jacob White and Jesse and Amanda Gibson were present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that AT&T had submitted a letter noting no objection to the proposed easement encroachment. Andrew Francis addressed the Board in support of the application. He deferred further comment until after the objectors addressed the Board. Tim Grooms addressed the Board in opposition. He stated that he represented two (2) nearby property owners. He discussed an alley issue related to the proposed property. He noted that the property owners purchased the lot knowing the issues associated with it. He explained that the proposed house is too large for the lot. John Tull also addressed the Board in opposition. He expressed concerns with drainage in the area and safety issues associated with his pool. Mr. Francis explained that the Gibsons had title insurance for the entire property. He explained that the proposed plan moved the house closer to the street and away from neighboring properties. He explained that the wall was constructed based on plans from an engineer and approved by Public Works. He explained that a three-story house could be constructed and meet the required setbacks. He noted that the house design was compatible with the area. The issue of the old alley was discussed further. Vice -Chair Smith commented on the requested variances. He explained that the proposed house with reduced front setbacks would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He noted pulling the house forward on the lot was the correct thing to do in this instance. There was brief discussion related to the wall construction. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The application was approved.