Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8993 Staff AnalysisDECEMBER 15, 2014 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8993 Owner: Wildwood Partners, LLC Applicant: Thomas Pownall Address: 19419 Summershade Drive Description: Lot 29, Block 4, Wildwood Ridge Addition, Phase II 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 front platted building line encroachment. 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 go Public Works Issues: No Comments Staff Anaiysis: The R-2 zoned property at 19419 Summershade Drive is currently an undeveloped single family lot. The property is located on the south side of Summershade Drive at Flint Creek Court. The lot is mostly tree covered. The property has excessive slope from front to back (north to south). There is approximately 50 feet of slope downward from the front (north) property line to the rear (south) property line. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The residence will be one (1) story in height with a basement. Covered porches will be located on the front and rear of the residence. A two -car wide driveway is proposed near the northeast corner of the lot, leading to a garage on the east side of the residence. The front wall of the proposed residence will be located 19.41 feet to 22.39 feet back from the front (north) property line. The covered front porch area will be located 15.35 feet to 16.36 feet back from the front property line. The overall residence will cross the front platted building line by 2.61 feet to 9.65 feet. DECEMBER 15, 2014 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.' 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. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residence with a reduced front setback and which crosses a front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the front setback and building line variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The variances are requested due to the excessive slope downward from the front of the lot to the rear. As noted previously, there is approximately 50 feet of drop from front to back. There will be approximately 16 feet of downward slope from the front of the residence to the rear of the structure. The lot has over 30 percent of downward slope. The lot appears to qualify for the hillside standards as per the City's Subdivision Ordinance and could have been platted with a 15 foot front setback at the time the subdivision was created. Staff feels that because of the curvature of the street the proposed residence will not appear to be out of alignment with future structures along the south side of Summershade Drive. Staff believes the 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 proposed 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 setback and building line variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The front porch area must remain unenclosed on its north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (December 15, 2014) 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.