HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6222 Staff AnalysisNovember 25, 1996
Item No.: 4
.FileNo.:
Owner:
A_ddress:
Descriptio
Zoned:
Variance Reg!Aested:
justification:
Present Use Of PrOVert :
proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Comments:
No issues
B. staff Analysis:
Z-6222
John Frederick
#38 Iverness Circle
Lot 17, Block 11, Pleasant Valley
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a deck
with a reduced rear yard setback.
The presence of a front yard 35
foot building line has pushed the
house to the rear of the lot,
reducing buildable area. The
property to the rear is an
undevelopable "green belt" which
will not be impacted by the reduced
setback.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
The owner of the property at #38 Iverness Circle proposes to
construct a 10 foot by 30 foot deck onto the rear of his
house. Due to the slope of the property, the deck will be
approximately 4 feet above grade. The deck will have
handrails and will not be covered or enclosed. AS proposed,
the deck will come to within 13 feet of the rear property
line. The R-2 district requires a rear yard setback of 25
feet.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable and
offers the following justification. First, the property has
a 35 foot platted building line on the front which pushes
November 25, 1996
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
development more toward the rear of the lot. 25 foot
building lines are more typically found in residential
subdivisions.
Second, the property to the rear is undeveloped and heavily
wooded. This ravine will likely never be developed and will
serve as a buffer to reduce the impact of the proposed,
reduced rear yard setback.
Lastly, the deck will not be covered or enclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to the deck not being covered or enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 25, 1996)
The applicant, John Frederick, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of approval, with conditions.
Mr. Frederick offered no additional comments other than to state
that he had no problems with staff's recommendation.
A motion was made to approve the requested variance subject to
the deck not being covered or enclosed. The variance was
approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, I absent and 1 open
position.
K