Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES July 18, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO.S: Consideration of a front setback variance at 3100 Pleasant Forest Drive, lot 11, block 1, Pleasant Forest Subdivision. Applicant is Southwest Homes. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new home. The subject is undeveloped. A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required front setback. A corner of the planned garage extends approximately five feet over the front building setback line. Thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 5 -feet to the front setback to allow for the construction of the home. The ZBA could consider the 20 -foot drainage and access easement along the western property line as a special condition. The property was platted with a western side setback requirement of 11.5 feet. Because of the easement, the setback requirement is increased by 8.5 feet, reducing the amount of buildable space on the lot. The ZBA could consider that the special condition of the easement creates a hardship. The easement reduces the buildable area of the lot. In comparison to the other lots in the subdivision, this buildable area appears to be smaller. Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1. Do not grant the variance — The structure is in the planning phase, so, at this time, no physical encroachments exist. A denial will require the applicant to design a home that meets the front setback requirement for the lot. 2. Move the structure to the rear setback line and grant a 3.5 feet variance — The plans show the house will be placed approximately 1.5 feet from the rear setback. If the house were moved back to the line, the front of the house would encroach 1.5 feet less into the front setback. 3. As with any case the Board my grant less than what is requested (0-5 feet). Mr. Hill asked Ms. Hitchcock does the current site plan indicate that the house is to be built 16 or 18 inches forward of the rear setback line. Ms. Hitchcock replied approximately 16 inches. Mr. Richards asked if the builder was aware of the 25 -foot setback when the house was designed. Ms. Hitchcock replied that there was a representative in the audience and she believed they did talk to a plan designer and they have worked through several options for this lot. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that she realized 16 inches in not quite the 1- '/z foot. The 1-'/z foot was used to give the builder a few inches leeway. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. Walter Williams, applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Williams told the Board when the property owner bought the lot he was unaware of the 20 -foot drainage easement. It was when the homeowner came to Southwest Homes to begin the process of designing his home he picked a plan out of a catalogue and thought it would fit on the lot. When the house was being designed to fit it was then realized that that there was a 20 foot drainage easement and there was also a sidewalk running down the easement as well. Mr. Williams ended by telling the Board they worked with the developer as well as redrawing 4 to 5 different plans trying to fit a house within the buildable property. Mr. Hill asked what is the distance between the rear of the slab and the rear setback. Mr. Williams replied it is a 1-'/z foot distance but he likes to have a little leeway. With no one else stepping forward the speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis 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 conditions: unusual lot shape, large drainage easement and a very small portion of the house would actually end up in front of the normal 25 foot setback; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: it would be virtually impossible to build a house to meet the minimum size requirements on this lot; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the back side of the house would be set on the rear setback line so the variance being granted would be 3 '/z feet to the front setback requirement. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Mr. Hill made an amendment to the motion to state a 4 -foot variance instead of the 3-V2 foot variance. Mr. Lewis seconded the amended motion, which passed (4-0-1). Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. The Board voted (4-0-1) to grant the variance. Chairman Bond abstaining from voting.