HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0168 Staff Analysisr' June 9, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. ,4� Marcus George Building Line Waiver
APPLICANT/OWNER
LOCATION:
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
"s/(4
Scott Farrell - Marcus George
5327 Southwood
The location of this site is a residential neighborhood
with single family homes of varying sizes. A
noticeable feature of the area is the construction of
most of the existing homes relatively close to the
property lines. The particular property in question is
on sloping ground facing Southwood Road. There is a
considerable amount of different in grade between the
east and west side of the property. No drainage
problems are apparent.
B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This proposal involves the rebuilding of a carport on
an existing residence. The applicant is requesting
that the new addition be permitted to encroach by 5'
4W into an area established by a 20' platted building
line. The applicants feel justified in mak7_ng this
request because of safety considerations. The apparent
grade differential between two sides of the property
and the fact that Southwood Road is one way in a
westerly direction, makes exit from the existing
carport critical a large percentage of the time. This
is especially so because of the amount of school
traffic usually traveling in the direction of Forest
Heights Junior High School. The applicants feel that
this revision of the driveway and carport entrance
would minimize the existing problem by allowing a more
visible entrance onto Southwood Road.
1. Conformance to Ordinance
The proposal varies from the Ordinance in the
manner stated above.
2. Legal -Considerations
The need for an amended Bill of Assurance is the
only thing evident at this time.
C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
to No objections.
June 9, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. ANALYSIS
Staff agrees that there probably is a safety factor
involved with the existing design of the residence. We
feel that the proposed design is a far better
improvement over the present, since it eliminates the
need for backing into the street by providing a
turnaround. As in all cases of this nature, Staff is
reluctant to set a precedent for future proposals of
this sort. To do so would constitute invalidation of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff wishes to pass this item to the Subdivision
Committee without recommendation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee voted for approval, based on the safety
factor, but contingent upon the submittal of the necessary
40 signatures to Staff. Chairman Johnson instructed the Staff
to arrange for a joint session with the Commission and the
Board of Directors to discuss problems in relation to issues
of this nature. The Committee also suggested that this
matter be postponed until the May 26th Public Hearing, due
to the applicant's inability to be in attendance at the
May-12th meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION (April 1981)
Because of the applicant's request for postponement at the
Subdivision Committee meeting, a motion for deferment until
May 26th was made and passed unanimously. The vote:
7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (May 26, 1981)
Since the applicant was not in attendance, the Commission
unanimously voted to defer this item until the June 9th
Subdivision Public Hearing. The votes - 9 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent.
IN
June 9, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (5-28-81)
Since the applicant was not present, the Committee voted to
defer discussion of this item until the June 9th meeting.
The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(June 9, 1981)
By request of the applicant, a motion was made for
withdrawal of the application. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
110