Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES February 1, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear and side setback variance at 9410 Whitney, lot 14, block 29, Woodcrcek 10-A. Applicant is Randall Pitcock for Clay Petrus. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board the applicant is requesting a variance in order to finish construction of a 12 feet by 10 feet (120 square feet) accessory storage building. Accessory buildings 100 square feet or larger are required to have a building permit and meet setback regulations. A building inspector noticed the building being constructed without the required permits. When the applicant came in to obtain the building permit, it was found that the structure did not meet the necessary setbacks. Construction is halted at this time until a Zoning Board decision is made. The request is to allow the accessory building to be 4 feet from the rear property line and 4 feet from the side (west) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 11 feet from the rear and 3.5 feet from the west side setback. The applicant offers a special condition of the subject property having a sloping topography. The applicant states that the proposed location of the accessory building is situated as to give it the best screening. The applicant adds that if the structure were moved to be within the required setbacks, it would be visible from the road and to neighboring properties. The applicant offers a hardship that the current placement of the accessory building will be more aesthetically pleasing for the whole neighborhood. In addition, the structure is almost complete. Ms. Anderson reminded the Board that hardships must pertain to the property characteristics and should not be self-inflicted. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randall Pitcock, applicant/builder, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Pitcock told the Board when the home was purchased the homeowner requested additional storage. Approval was sought and received from the Architectural Control Committee for the Woodcreek Subdivision. Mr. Pitcock stated that it was his error for not researching the size of the building and the location. Mr. Pitcock told the Board that construction was stopped upon discovering the discrepancies. There were discussions with the neighbors to accommodate their concerns. Mr. Pitcock stated that there is a 12 -foot separation from the closest structure, which meets the NFPA. Mr. Pitcock ended by telling the Board that the height of the structure is 9 foot 6 inches. Its placement was believed to be best for aesthetics reasons. If the building had to be relocated it would be very visible from the curb. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Pitcock to explain how the slopping topography is creating a hardship. Mr. Pitcock replied that if the building were moved up away from the rear setback it would be made more visible from the road. Mr. Bond asked how much additional visibility would be added if the building was moved up. Mr. Pitcock replied it would be an additional 2 feet. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Pitcock if the variance is granted and the building is allowed to remain where it is currently being constructed, what kind of separation is there for structures on adjacent properties. Mr. Pitcock answered for the property directly behind it would be approximately 14 feet. Mr. Pitcock described it as being the one lot out of the three that would be the most visibly obstructed. Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the variance. Steve Hassel, 9304 Weslayan Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Hassel told the Board that he is the back neighbor. Mr. Hassel expressed his concern as a significant risk if the structure caught on fire and it spreading to his home. Mr. Hassel told the Board that the drainage in that area would be affected as well due to the positioning of the building. Mr. Hassel also expressed concern if the city had to do work in that area, they would have to access his yard to get in and that would cause damage to his property. Mr. Hassel ended by describing to the Board the view out of his bedroom window. Mitchell White, 9307 Weslayan Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. White stated his opposition is because the structure can be seen if you look out of any window in the front of his home. Mr. White told the Board that he is not opposed to the structure but rather that it is so high above the fence. Mr. White ended by described the building as being offensive when he sees it. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (3-2). Chairman Alexander and Dr. Bailey voting for granting the variance.