HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT
Date: January 26, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: February 1, 2000
APPLICANT: Randall Pitcock
REQUEST: Rear and side setback variance
LOCATION: 9410 Whitney Lane
PURPOSE: To allow an accessory building to be within the required setbacks.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Contractor
Property Owner: Clay Petrus
Applicable
Ordinance Section: Section 7 District Regulations; Table A Area
Requirements; Note F
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned and
developed R-1 Single Family Residential. The area is developed
as the Woodcreek Subdivision.
Frontage: Weslayan Ct. -- 98.19'
Whitney Ln. -- 62.50'
Lot Dimensions: North: 88.74'
South: 62.5'
West: 123.98'
East: 98.19'
Access: Access is provided via driveway on Weslayan Court.
Topography &
Vegetation: The property gently slopes and is very vegetated with
several large trees.
Flood Plain: Not located in the flood plain.
O:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\zngstfrpt\h onda. doc
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Required Setbacks: Rear:
15' for accessory buildings (other than garages)
Side:
7.5'
Requested Setbacks: Rear:
4'
Side:
4'
The applicant is requesting a variance in order to finish
construction on a 12'x 10' (120 square feet) accessory
storage building. Accessory buildings with permanent
slabs must meet setback requirements. 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.
As stated above, the applicant is requesting permission 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 II
feet from the rear and 3.5 feet from the west side setback.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions: 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.
Hardships: The applicant offers a hardship that the current placement
of the accessory building will be more asthetically pleasing
for the whole neighborhood. In addition, the structure is
almost complete. Hardships must pertain to the property
characteristics and should not be self-inflicted.
Alternatives: Staff has found the following alternatives:
Move the accessory building to be within the required
setbacks.
2. The Board may grant a variance less than requested.
O:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\zngstfrpt\h onda. doc
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some
degree of control over population density, access to light
and air, and fire protection. Rear setbacks also provide for
a usable backyard area These standards are typically
justified on the basis of the protection of property values.
Similar Requests: The Board has heard several requests for accessory
buildings to be located within the rear and side setbacks.
Most recently, on December 7, 1999 the Board approved a
variance for a storage and work area that had been
constructed at 204 A Fairview within these setbacks. The
Special Condition in that case was a large public utility
easement and alley, which allowed for separation from the
back neighboring property. On November 2, 1999, the
Board approved a variance to allow a garage to be built at
201 Suffolk in the rear setback area. Again an alley
contributed to the special conditions found in the case.
Both of these cases were located in the area known as
Southside, which is one of the oldest residential areas found
in the City. Many of the properties in the Southside area
have nonconformities due to prexisting many of today's
Zoning regulations.
On November 19, 1996, the Board denied two variance
requests for accessory storage buildings to be located
within the rear and side setbacks. The subject properties
were located at 2312 and 2308 Auburn Court. In both of
these cases, a code enforcement officer noticed that no
permits had been pulled for the structures. The accessory
buildings in both instances were larger than requested in
this case (144 sq.ft. and 192 sq.ft., respectfully). The
minutes show reasons for denial to be with concerns of
increased density, and in response to negative statements
during the public hearing by neighboring property owners.
Number of Property
Owners Notified: 28
Responses Received: None as of date of this report.
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Site Plan
Structure Drawing
O:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\zngstfrpt\h onda. doc