Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8897 Staff AnalysisDECEMBER 16, 2013 ITEM NO_- A File No.: Z-8897 Owner/Applicant: Brady and Danielle Davis Address: 10 Pine View Place Description: Lots 6-8, Woodland Farm Estates Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a new residence with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Lots Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 10 Pine View Place is comprised of three (3) platted single family lots (Lots 6-8, Woodland Farm Estates). The lots are currently undeveloped and partially tree covered. There is a retaining wall (approximately 12 foot tall) along the front (south) property line which was constructed when the street was constructed. The property slopes upward from front to back, to a rock outcropping near the center of the lots. The property then slopes downward to the rear property line. The slope in the rear is less severe than the slope in the front. There is a 20 foot wide utility easement which runs along the rear property line of the lots and eight (8) foot easements which run along the dividing side property lines. The lots contain a 25 foot platted front building line. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. Almost the entire residence will be constructed within Lot 7, with a small portion of the garage extending onto Lot 6. Because of the slope and rock outcropping, the house is proposed to be located in the rear (north) half of the property. A rear setback ranging from seven (7) feet to 22.5 feet is proposed. A proposed driveway will extend from Pine View Place along the side and rear property line of Lot 6. A portion of the proposed house will be located within the 20 foot utility easement at the rear of Lot 7 and the eight (8) foot easements between Lots 7 and 6. The applicant has noted that if this application is approved, he will file a separate application to abandon these portions of the easements. DECEMBER 16, 2013 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new residence with a reduced rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The slope and rock outcropping(s) within the front half to two-thirds of the property make construction very difficult. The applicant has identified the area of the property with the least severe slope to locate the new residence. The property backs up to a rather wide platted green space/open space. The green space/open space is approximately 130 feet to 150 feet wide. Therefore, the proposed house will not back up to another single family lot. Staff's support is based on the applicant following -up with a request to abandon the portions of the easements the proposed house encroaches into. Otherwise, staff believes the proposed reduced setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the easements which the proposed structure encroaches upon being abandoned or partially abandoned. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (November 25, 2013) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 16, 2013 agenda based on the fact that the applicant did not complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. All signatures from surrounding property owners were obtained late. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2013 agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (December 16, 2013) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved.