boa_11 27 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the October 30, 2000 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman
William Ruck, Vice Chairman
Norm Floyd
Fred Gray
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
I.
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z -6578-A
II. NEW ITEMS
AGENDA
NOVEMBER 27, 2000
2:00 P.M.
5525 Scenic Drive
1.
Z -2706-A
1.
8302 Asher Avenue
2.
Z-6941
3306 "H" Street
3.
Z-6943
5901 Hawthorne Road
4.
Z-6944
1112 Kavanaugh Blvd.
5.
Z-6945
#1 Deer Meadow Cove
6.
Z-6949
#8 Cypress Cove
7.
2001 Board
of Adjustment Calendar
r
i
Nc„vember 27, 2000
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -6578-A
Mary Lee McHenry
5525 Scenic Drive
Lot 15 and part of Lot 16, Grandview
R-2
A variance is requested from the
accessory structure area
regulations of Section 36-156.
I have a business at home called
Fresh Herbs for Gourmets which
supplies herbs to local restaurants
and grocery stores. My home at
present has no greenhouse, which I
badly need in the winter so that I
can keep some of my plants out of
the winter weather.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5525 Scenic Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family
residence. On October 26, 1998, the Board approved setback
and building line variances to allow for substantial
expansion of the home. The property is located at the
corner of Scenic Drive and North Taylor Street and has a
platted building line varying from 20 feet to 30 feet in
width on both street frontages. The applicant now proposes
to place a 9 foot X 11 foot accessory building between the
home and Scenic Drive. The accessory building is to be
N� .ember 27, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
placed across a platted building line and will have a street
side yard setback of 1.5 - 2 feet. Although the house faces
Scenic Drive, the lot fronts onto Taylor Street and the
required setbacks are based on that lot orientation. The
code requires accessory buildings to have a minimum setback
on the street side line of 15 feet.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although
it can be argued that allowing a reduced side yard setback
on this dead-end street is reasonable, there are other
issues which must be considered. Other homes east of the
applicant's property front onto Scenic Drive. Although the
applicant's lot fronts to Taylor Street, her home faces
Scenic Drive. Placement of an accessory building of this
nature in the front yard is out of character with the
neighborhood and could have a detrimental effect on
neighboring properties. A 10 foot wide sewer easement
extends through the applicant's property, parallel to Scenic
Drive. The proposed building is located over that sewer
easement. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has
recommended denial of the request based on the structure's
proposed placement over the sewer easement. Through its
previous action, the Board allowed a substantial expansion
of the house. Allowing the accessory structure to be placed
on the property will create the visual appearance of the
site being overdeveloped. Finally, on November 29, 1999,
the Board approved the applicant's home occupation which
involves the growing, packaging, sales and delivery of
culinary herbs and flowers. She was approved to have 3
part-time employees, working an aggregate total of 54 hours
per week. The applicant has indicated that the proposed
accessory building is to be a greenhouse for the purpose of
growing herbs. Section 36-253(b)(6) of the Code prohibits
the use of accessory buildings in relation to a home
occupation.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 25, 2000)
Mary Lee McHenry and Bill Sneed were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff informed the
Board that the applicant had discussed the issue with the
Wastewater Utility and that it was possible that the sewer line
2
N',..ember 27, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
was in the street, not in the easement. As such, Wastewater
might not be opposed to the item but, no written or verbal
statement had been received from the utility.
Ms. McHenry addressed the Board. She stated that it was her
intent to build a small, attractive greenhouse and that there was
no where else on the property to place the structure. She stated
that most of the homes along Scenic Drive actually face to the
south and have access off of South Scenic Drive. As such, most
of the homes have a rear yard relationship to Scenic Drive.
Gary Langlais asked Ms. McHenry if she had considered attaching
the greenhouse to the home. Ms. McHenry responded that she had
not.
Norm Floyd commented that there were a lot of mature trees around
the property and asked if they would not block sun from reaching
the greenhouse. Ms. McHenry responded that the greenhouse would
not get as much sun as she would like but that there was no where
else on the site to place the structure.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. McHenry stated
that the greenhouse was for her personal use only and would not
be used in conjunction with her home occupation.
Mr. Langlais noted that the Board was down to four members
present and offered Ms. McHenry the opportunity to defer. She
asked that the Board vote on the item.
A motion was made to approve the variances subject to approval
by the Wastewater Utility. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes and
1 absent. Due to a lack of 3 votes, either for or against the
item, it was deferred to the October 30, 2000 meeting.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 30, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant was out of town and
had requested that the item be deferred for one month.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the November 27, 2000 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
3
N, ember 27, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
9
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant, Mary Lee McHenry, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Board that Little Rock
Wastewater Utility had determined that the sewer line was in the
street right-of-way, not in the easement across Ms. McHenry's
property. As such, the utility had no objection to granting the
variance. Staff expressed continued concern with the proposed
placement of the structure.
Ms. McHenry addressed the Board in support of her variance
request. She stated hers was one of only two homes on this
portion of Scenic that faced the street.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. McHenry stated that
the greenhouse would not be used in any way related to her home
occupation. She described the structure as being built of glass
with a rock foundation to blend with the house. Ms. McHenry
reiterated that she would not be growing herbs in the greenhouse
as part of her business.
A motion was made to approve the requested setback variance. The
motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent.
4
1v"ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 1
File No.: Z -2706-A
Owner: Lena Tzao
Address: 8302 Asher Avenue
Description: All of Lots 19 and 20 and the South
65 feet of Lots 5 and 6, Block 4,
Pike Addition
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
C-3, R-3 and R-4
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Sections 36-255
and 36-256 to permit construction
of a garage addition with a reduced
rear yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached statement.
Single Family
Single Family
The property located at 8302 Asher Avenue is occupied by a
one-story, stucco and frame, single family residence. The
property consists of 2 full lots fronting onto Asher and two
half lots located in the rear. The front lots are zoned C-3
and are undeveloped, serving as an expanded front yard for
the residence, which is located on the rear of the property.
The half lot that the house is now located on is zoned R-4.
The remaining half lot is zoned R-3. The applicant proposes
to construct a garage addition onto the house. The addition
will extend from the R-4 zoned half lot onto the R-3 zoned
half lot and will have a rear yard setback of 10 feet. The
code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet.
N�_ amber 27, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
This is an unusual situation in that, at some point prior to
this area being annexed into the City, the home was built on
the rear half of lots that actually front onto West 46th
Street. Houses are located on the north half of the lots.
Consequently, the residentially zoned portion of the
applicant's property is only 65 feet deep and 100 feet wide.
The house now has a rear yard setback of 20± feet. The home
cannot be expanded onto the C-3 zoned property to the south
since C-3 does not permit single family dwellings as a
permitted use. Due to the architectural configuration of
the existing house, the proposed two -car garage cannot be
added elsewhere. The proposed variance is for only the
width of the garage. The remaining setback will not be
affected. It appears that adequate separation will remain
between the proposed garage addition and the residence to
the north. The property to the north is at a higher
elevation than the applicant's property. The two properties
are separated by a 4 foot, stone wall. Staff does not
believe the proposed addition will negatively impact
adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant, Leta Tzao, and her architect, Terry Burruss, were
present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board
that Mr. Burruss' plans now showed the addition to have a rear
yard setback of 8 feet. In response to a question from the
Board, both Ms. Tzao and Mr. Burruss confirmed that the required
sign had been posted on the property in a timely manner. Mr.
Burruss surmised that the heavy rains of the previous weekend may
have knocked the sign down.
Mr. Burruss described the proposed addition as being built with
steel studs, vinyl siding and a shingle roof. He stated that he
had determined that it was more architecturally sound to tie the
addition into the house's roof -line as his plans showed,
resulting in the 8 foot rear yard.
2
N, -.ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
Norm Floyd asked why the garage could not be built as a
free-standing accessory structure, requiring no variance.
Mr. Burruss responded that Ms. Tzao lived alone and wanted to
have an enclosed, attached garage for safety purposes.
Ms. Tzao stated that the proposed location was the best to attach
the garage addition, due to the architecture of the house.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. Tzao stated
that there was no objection from the residents living in the home
to the rear of her property.
A motion was made to approve the requested rear yard setback
variance. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
3
Subject: A copy of explanation
Applicant wishes to waive 25'easement
requirements on North side of S.65', S. lot 51 blip
4.,Pike, addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County ARK.,
Applicant feels that Due to an atready
existing -almost 4'stonewall separating the
s
propertie
1. . and an almost 4' rise in ground levels
separating the propertiesno harm will be done
to thelaojac-ent property owner.
Applicant wishes to. constructa Garage
closer ( about 10'or less) to the property line
than the existing 251 easement wilil presently
allow. Thank you for all your help: to makes it
possible.
2-2�o�-A
Nt— ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6941
Robert Grim
3306 "H" Street
West '-2 of Lots 5 and 6, Block 8,
East Pulaski Heights Addition
R-3
Variances are requested from the
accessory structure area and
separation provisions of Section
36-156.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-3 zoned property at 3306 "H" Street is occupied by a
one-story brick and frame, single-family residence and a
detached, garage structure. The existing garage has a front
yard setback of 18± feet, a side yard setback of 3.2 feet
and is separated from the residence by 3± feet. The
applicant proposes to remove the existing garage and build
in its place a new carport structure. The new carport will
maintain the existing 18± foot front yard and 3± foot
separation but is proposed to have a 0 foot side yard
setback. The code requires a front yard setback of 60 feet,
a side yard setback of 3 feet and a minimum separation from
the principal structure of 6 feet.
I1, amber 27, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
Staff has concerns about the proposed carport structure.
Allowing the new structure to maintain the existing 18± foot
front yard setback and 3± foot separation does not seem
unreasonable. The situation should in fact be improved
since the new carport will be open on the front and sides
allowing for better passage of air and light and more ready
access in case of an emergency. Staff's concern lies with
the proposed 0 foot side yard. The house on the adjacent
property has only a 1.2-1.4 foot setback from the common
side property line. Allowing the applicant to construct a
structure any closer than the current 3.2 foot side yard
greatly increases the possibility of fire spreading from one
property onto the other. Additionally, the plan submitted
to staff shows the roof of the proposed carport pitching to
the sides, causing water to run-off onto the adjacent
property.
Staff has consistently taken a position of opposition to
0 foot side yard setback proposals. Staff feels that
position is strengthened in this case by the presence of the
neighboring house.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral to the December 18, 2000 meeting. The applicant had
indicated a desire to work with his architect to address concerns
raised by staff. The request for deferral was received on the
morning of November 27, 2000.
A motion was made waive the Board's Bylaws to accept the
applicant's late request for deferral. The motion was approved
by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the December 18, 2000 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
2
Robert E. Grim
2205 H. St. % U5 SGV f �
Little Rock, AR 72205 J
501-666-2376 ext. 229
October 16', 2000
Little Rock Dept. of Planning and Development
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72202
We are requesting a residential zoning variance which would allow us to replace an
existing shed with an attractive carport. The architect's drawing of the proposed
structure is provided along with a picture of the current shed. Both include our house
and the houses on either side of our property.
Also provided with this letter is a survey showing the width of our lot to be only 78.1
feet. This unusual lot configuration requires the carport to go less than a foot from the
east property line even though we have a relatively small house. It should be noted that
the current shed and driveway are already occupying the exact space where the carport
would be built. The proposed new structure, the carport, would replace the existing shed
and significantly improve the appearance of our home, our lot, and the entire
neighborhood.
The neighbor most affected by this structure is Mary Cameron who lives in the house
immediately east of our lot. She is fully aware of this variance request and has no
objection to it.
We respectfully request that this variance be approved.
Sincerely,
���Q
Robert E. Grim Jacquelyn . Grim
%JaA S,dej-, �,L 1C., '
10W Xe44Z--
Nt,✓ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6943
Timothy and Amy Stafford
5901 Hawthorne Road
Lot 36, Forest Heights Place
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area and separation regulations of
Section 36-254 and 36-156 to permit
construction of an addition with a
reduced side yard setback and
reduced separation.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property at 5901 Hawthorne Road is occupied by
a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The
house currently has a 3 foot side yard setback on the west
side. The applicant proposes to build an addition onto the
rear of the house, maintaining the existing 3 foot side
yard. The code requires a side yard setback of 6 foot for
this lot. Additionally, a set of stairs are proposed to
come out of the back of the addition and to extend to within
3+ feet of an accessory building. The code requires a
minimum separation of 6 feet between structures.
N,,ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Allowing
the new addition to maintain the existing 3 foot side yard
makes sense architecturally and should have no greater
impact on the adjacent property. The house on the adjacent
lot is located approximately 8 feet from the side lot line,
providing adequate separation between structures. The new
addition is to be built in an area currently occupied by a
wood deck. Reduced side yards are not uncommon in the
Heights area where the majority of the lots were platted as
either 50 or 60 feet in width. The proposed steps which are
to be located in the area between the new addition and the
accessory building are to be built of concrete and are not
proposed to be covered. Otherwise, the area between the
structures is to remain open. Staff believes it is
reasonable to limit the size of any overhang on the side of
the proposed addition and to require guttering to prohibit
any water run-off.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard and
separation variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the west side of the proposed
addition is to be limited to a maximum of 12 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the west side of the
addition to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
3. The steps between the proposed addition and the
accessory building are to remain uncovered and
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
2
N`.ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
Mack and Amy Stafford
5901 Hawthorne
Little Rock, AR 72207
501-663-2257
October 24, 2000
Department of Planning and Development
Board of Adjustments
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4790
Dear Madam/Sir:
My wife and I are planning an addition to our residence and are requesting a variance.
The reason for the variance is the existing 10' by 9' Family Room that we wish to extend
from is 3' from the property line and current regulations require a 6'offset. I believe it is
very important to obtain the variance. The additional 3' offset required to meet the 6'
building line would severely disrupt the internal design and function of the room and add
to building costs and time. It would greatly reduce both the usability of the room for
furniture and cabinets and the architectural aesthetics of the room by more than the lost
35 sq. ft. Allowing us to extend naturally from the existing residence would only require
an additional 11' 5" of wall built along the 3' building line. We feel an attractive
floorplan is very important to a home. Approving the variance request would allow us to
add a beautiful Family Room that would add value to the home and to the neighborhood.
We are also requesting we be allowed to move the existing concrete steps within the 6'
offset required between the addition and the detached shed. We ask this because requiring
them to be placed on the side of the house would farther disrupt the floorplan of the
room.
Thank you for considering our request for the variance.
Sincerely,.
Mack and Amy Sta ford
Nt,Jember 27, 2000
Item No.: 4
File No.: Z-6945
Owner: Robert and Amy Keltner
Address: 1112 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lot 25, Block 5, Midland Hills
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-156 to permit construction of an
arbor over the front gate.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: "The arbor
would be a positive addition to the
historic character of the Hillcrest
neighborhood without compromising
the intended purpose of the height
requirements and setback
requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance."
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 1112 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied
by a two-story, frame, single-family residence. The owner
of the home has recently constructed a 3.5 -foot tall, picket
fence around the front yard. He desires to construct an
arbor over the front gate. The arbor would be incorporated
into the fence and would be approximately 8-10 feet tall at
the highest point. Since the arbor is incorporated into the
fence, staff determined that it was subject to the fence
N— ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
height regulations. The code limits the height of fences
erected within the setback adjacent to streets to 4 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
proposed arbor is 7'6" in width. The picket fence angles
back from the front property line so that the arbor is set
back 3 feet from the property line, 8 feet from the sidewalk
and 12 feet from the curb of Kavanaugh Blvd. The sides of
the arbor will be enclosed with lattice -work. Otherwise,
the structure will be open and unenclosed. The structure
will not create a sight -distance problem and presents no
hazard to persons on the sidewalk. The structure fits in
nicely with the character of the Hillcrest neighborhood and
should have no impact on any adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height
variance to allow for construction of the arbor as proposed
by the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
N, -✓ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 5
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6945
Casonia Vinson
#1 Deer Meadow Cove
Lot 14, Block 1, Deer Meadow
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-156 to permit a 6 foot tall
privacy fence within the street
side yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at #1 Deer Meadow Cove is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The occupant has recently erected a 6 foot tall
privacy fence enclosing the street side and rear yard. The
fence extends past the building line to the property line
adjacent to Deer Meadow Drive. The code limits the height
of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to 4
feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The fence is
located 19± feet from the curb of Deer Meadow Drive which,
at this point, is a divided street with a median. The
street has an 80 foot right-of-way. The broad right-of-way
and the traffic lanes being divided by the median reduce the
N,, -ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
potential of a sight -distance hazard. This property, as
with several others on Deer Meadow Drive, had a chain-link
fence that actually extended into the right-of-way. That
portion of the chain-link fence has been removed and the
new, privacy fence is totally within the property lines.
The fence has been constructed in "good neighbor" fashion,
with the finished side facing outward.
During the site visit, staff becomes aware of a new storage
building that had been placed between the house and Deer
Meadow Drive, behind the new privacy fence. The applicant
was advised that the structure did not meet required
setbacks. The applicant has stated that she will relocate
the structure to an appropriate location on her property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the fence height variance, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
October 26, 2000
To Whom it May Concern:
I'm writing this letter in regards to a courtesy notice and denial of permit for
a privacy fence that was installed at my home on Thursday, October 19 by
A&K Fence. My home along with several others that are fenced have
chain-link fences that extend almost to the curb, which I found out exceeds
the property lines. The 6ft, wooden privacy fence I had installed around the
backside and back yard was moved in to meet my property line requirements
and also allotted the city a 5 foot ease. The fence does not obstruct a drivers
view, nor does it make the property less attractive.
I had this fence installed for several reasons, the first being that I have a
swimming pool and jacuzzi on my deck, and from what I've seen, there are
several children in the neighborhood for whom I do not want to be deemed
responsible for any water -related accidents on my property. If they cannot
see the pool, then they will not have anything to arouse their curiosity.
Second, this fence decreases the number of headlights, rubbemeckers and
other outside activities and increases my right to privacy.
I'm asking the board of adjustment to grant me a variance to allow me to
keep my fence as it is so that I can enjoy the privacy of my home.
Thank you,
Casonia Vinson
z -6c, � S-�
N�✓ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6949
James and Deborah Rudolph
#8 Cypress Cove
Lot 237, The Ranch Addition
EaWA
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a new
house with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: The lot has a unusual shape, being
narrow at the front. The house has
been situated to accommodate a
side -loaded garage. The lot backs
up to a lake so the reduced rear
yard will not impact any other
properties.
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Vacant lot
Single Family
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family
residence on the R-2 zoned lot located at #8 Cypress Cove.
The residence is proposed to have a reduced rear yard
setback of 15.5± feet. The code requires a rear yard
setback of 25 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The lot is
"pie -shaped", being narrow at the front. The house has been
situated farther back than the standard 25 foot front yard
N"ember 27, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
setback to accommodate a side -loaded garage. The proposed
encroachment involves only a small corner of the residence.
The area of the encroachment is a screened porch. The lot
backs up to an open space and lake. Allowing this minor
intrusion into the rear yard area will not impact other
properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 27, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The
applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed
on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
N
ADOPTED: November 27, 2000
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CALENDAR OF MEETING DATES
2001
FILING DATE
LEGAL AD
MEETING DATE
12-22-00
01-19-01
01-29-01
01-26-01
02-16-01
02-26-01
02-23-01
03-16-01
03-26-01
03-23-01
04-20-01
04-30-01
04-27-01
05-11-01
05-21-01
05-25-01
06-15-01
06-25-01
06-22-01
07-20-01
07-30-01
07-27-01
08-17-01
08-27-01
08-24-01
09-14-01
09-24-01
09-21-01
10-19-01
10-29-01
10-26-01
11-16-01
11-26-01
11-19-01
12-07-01
12-17-01
12-21-01
01-18-02
01-28-02
NOTE: (1) All Board meetings to be held at 2:00 P.M. unless otherwise changed by
the Board.
(2) Agenda meeting to be held at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Conference Room on
meeting date.
NOTICE: AN INTERPRETER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
UPON REQUEST. REQUEST SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS
PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE.
e
II
Q
m
Q
i
I�
a
W
Q
Z
W
Q
`3
o
e
r
zoCC)
(3
J
Z
LL
0
¢
ZU
CO
U
�o��Q
O
W
Un
_J
W
z
LL
Q
uj
ruj 0
Q
Z
=
U
LL
II
Q
m
Q
i
I�
a
W
Q
Z
W
Q
o
zoCC)
(3
J
Z
LL
0
¢
ZU
CO
U
II
Q
m
Q
i
I�
a
W
Q
Z
W
Q
November 27, 2000
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:26 p.m.
Date: 1.'Pte. 2��c
Chairm S ret y