Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES April 4, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 718 Willow Loop, lot 28, block B, Brandon Heights II Subdivision. Applicant is William H. Rupley. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of an attached carport. The applicant proposes to construct a 440 sq. ft. carport addition to the rear of his home. Approximately half of this carport would lie within the 20 -foot setback. The proposed carport is angled in such a way as to encroach into the rear setback by 9 feet at one rear corner and by 15 feet at the opposite corner. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 15 to 9 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of limited access, stating that the only access to the proposed carport is through the existing driveway. Another special condition that may be considered by the Board is a 50 -foot common area/utility easement at the rear of the property that separates the subject property from the neighbor directly behind the proposed carport. The applicant stated that he wished for the issue of limited access to also be considered as a hardship. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. With no questions from the Board Members, Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Rupley, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Rupley showed and described to the Board some pictures of the property. One of the pictures showed a drainage area, which is like a retention pond. Mr. Rupley told the Board that when the home was built, it was his understanding that there was a 25 -foot setback line. Mr. Rupley described the home as oddly shaped. Mr. Rupley told the Board of the considerable time it took to place the home on the lot so it looked aesthetically pleasing and to also allow a driveway. Mr. Rupley stated that the existing driveway is actually built over the easement. Mr. Rupley told the Board that the common area where the garage is proposed, there is maybe as much as 90 feet to the next house and maybe 65 feet to the back neighbors garage. Mr. Rupley ended by telling the Board that he presented his plan to the Architectural Committee for the Brandon Heights II Subdivision and it meets all the requirements for the Associations standards. Ms. Ellis asked if the letter submitted by Mr. Anderholm (included in the Board's packet) supporting the request, was his neighbor directly behind his property. Mr. Rupley replied that Mr. Anderholm is catty corner from him and that no one lives in the home directly behind him at this time. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rupley if the proposed carport is going to be open or enclosed on the sides. Mr. Rupley replied that the side to the back of the lot would have a 5 foot high brick wall. Mr. Rupley referred to the architectural drawing that was included in the Board Members packets. Mr. Happ asked staff if the Board could restrict the kind of structure other than just giving a variance to the space. Ms. Anderson replied that they could restrict it to a carport especially since carports and garages have different rear setback requirements than other structures. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize 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 following special condition: the irregular shape of the lot restricts options of the structure's alteration. Additionally the lot has a common (drainage area) or 50' green area directly behind the proposed carport; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the applicant has limited or no options to alter this structure due to lot location and it's shape; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the alterations should be limited to an open carport structure as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Ms. Ellis asked if the amount of the variance needed to be stated. Mr. Happ replied yes that he needed to add that. Ms. Ellis made the amendment to read "minimum rear yard setback between 5' & 11 ` to allow for the construction of the carport as requested by the applicant and shown on the plan. " Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment, which passed (5-0). Mr. Happ read in full the amended motion. Board voted (5-0) for approval.