HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6142 Staff AnalysisMay 20, 1996
Item No.: 6
File No
Owner*
Address:
Description:
honed-
variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Prot)ertY:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Comments:
Z-6142
A. S. Rosen and Associates
Southeast corner of Beckenham Drive
and Huntleigh Drive
Lot 25 (unrecorded) Garrett Glen
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 to permit construction of a
single family residence which
crosses a platted 30 foot building
line.
Buildable area is reduced by
unusual lot shape and presence of
two building lines; one 25 foot and
one 30 foot.
Vacant lot
Single family residence
No Public Works' issues, acceptable space from back of curb
will be maintained.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family
house on the R-2 zoned property located at the southeast
corner of Huntleigh Drive and Beckenham Drive.
This unusually shaped lot has a platted 25 foot building
line on the front (Huntleigh) and a 30 foot building line on
the side (Beckenham). The presence of these two building
lines, when combined with the required side yard setback -on
the east side, reduces the buildable area available on the
lot. The applicant proposes to construct the house so that
one corner crosses the platted 30 foot building line on the
Beckenham Drive side. The corner of the house will encroach
7.5 feet, leaving a setback of 22.5 feet. -The house will be
May 20; 1996
-. 6 (con
located approximately 34 feet from the curb line of
Beckenham Drive.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable. The presence
of the two building lines, one being a 30 foot building
line, does impact the buildable area of the lot. The
proposed encroachment is relatively minor, involving only a
corner of the house.
If the building line variance is approved, the applicant
will have to do a one lot replat to reflect the change
approved by the Board. The applicant should review the
filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk to determine if the
replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
The survey submitted by the applicant indicates this to be
an unrecorded lot. If this is the case, a replat is not
used but rather a conventional final plat of the lot with
building line adjusted as approved by the Board.
C. Staff Reconunendati.an:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line
variance subject to a replat of the lot reflecting the
change in the building line as approved by the Board.
BOAR] OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 20, 1996)
Tim Daters was present representing the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, subject to a replat of the lot.
Mr. Daters described the difficulty of building on the lot and
asked for approval of the variance.
A motion was made to approve the requested building line variance
subject to a replat of the lot reflecting the change as approved
by the Board. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
2