HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0179 Staff AnalysisJanuary 27, 1981
49 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Building Line Waiver
NAME: Max Campbell Building Line Waiver
APPLICANT: Mr. Horace H. Piazza & Associates
Architects
OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. Max Campbell
#2 Janwood Drive
Little Rock, AR
REQUEST:
To change a 25' platted building line so that an addition to
the present structure may be constructed.
0
16,
January 27, 1981
Item No. 1 - Continued
Staff Report.
A. Existing Conditions.
This site is located in what apparently is a peaceful
residential subdivision of extremely well -kept single family
structures. The particular property in question is situated
on an elevated grade and at a slightly angular position
within the area that is formed by the merging of Danwood and
Flintwood Drives on the west and south respectively.
Abutting the existing structure on the northern end is a
paved driveway which slopes upward very sharply. No
particular problems of any notable significance that relate
to drainage and other public improvements are obvious.
B. Development Proposal.
The sole purpose of this proposal is a waiver of a 25'
platted building line established by ordinance. In
order that an encroaching carport addition may be
constructed, the applicants feel that design
considerations dictate that the proposed location is
logical, economically feasible and are aesthetically
pleasing. The basis of their request lies in what they
feel to be the unfeasibility of building this addition
on the western side of the present residence, which is
within the building line because of rock strata below
the ground surface, rock outcropping and elevated
grade above the residence floor line.
1. Conformance to Ordinance.
The proposal does not conform to the ordinance as
indicated by the request for the variance stated
above.
2. Legal Considerations.
None evident at this time, except Bill of Assurance.
C. Engineering Considerations.
No problems with the proposal.
January 27, 1981
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Analysis.
Staff has observed that, indeed, the owners do not have
much flexibility for additions. However, in these
circumstances this and all other justifications
presented cannot serve as overriding factors when the
clear intent and purpose of the ordinance is
considered. As in all cases of this nature, Staff does
not wish to set a precedent for future propositions of
the sort. To do so would constitute invalidation of
the subdivision requirement.
E. Staff Recommendation.
Denial on the above grounds.
Subdivision Committee Recommendation
After a brief discussion, it was determined by the Committee
that terrain and other factors in each site support a
variance. The Committee voted: 5 ayes, 0 nays to approve
the variance. The Committee directed Staff to deal with the
building line in a manner which will provide for the
intrusion only.
Planninq Commission Action
The applicant was present and discussed the proposal with
the Planning Commission. After a brief discussion, the
Commission moved to approve the building line waiver as
requested. The motion was passed: 8 ayes, 1 noe,
2 absent.
T')