HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6401 Staff AnalysisMarch 30, 1998
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Address•
Description•
zoned•
variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Propert :
Staff Report•
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6401
Larry D. Carter, Sr.
9608 Kensington
Lot 2, Kensington Place, Phase I
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-156
to permit an accessory building
with reduced side and rear
setbacks.
The applicant had the carport
constructed to provide covering for
his boat and to move the boat from
out of the front yard. He was not
aware of the required setbacks when
constructing the carport.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
1. Structure cannot be constructed in an easement or request
closing of easement.
2. Direct all roof runoff away from adjacent property. No
part of the roof or gutter shall extend beyond the
property line.
B. Staff Analysis:
The owner of the R-2 zoned property located at 9608
Kensington Drive has recently constructed a 16 foot by 24.2
foot, unenclosed carport structure in the rear yard of the
property. The carport is built on a concrete slab which
ties into a concrete driveway. The carport has a 2.8 foot
rear yard setback and a 0 foot side yard setback. A portion
of the structure actually extends beyond the property line,
into the neighboring yard. Once notified of the setback
violation, the applicant applied for a variance.
Staff feels that there are issues which preclude the Board
of Adjustment from hearing the issue at this point. The
March 30, 1998
Item No.: A (Cont
first issue is that a portion of the structure extends
across the property line. The Board of Adjustment cannot
grant a variance to allow construction across a property
line. The second issue concerns the fact that the structure
has been built over easements which are on the side and rear
property lines. No structure is to be built over an
easement.
Short of removing or relocating the structure, the
applicant's options are limited. If the carport is to
remain where it is, the applicant must either cut the
structure off at the property line or obtain a portion of
his neighbor's property. This would involve replatting the
two lots, adding a small portion of the neighboring lot onto
this lot. This is a fairly involved and expensive process
which would involve both the applicant and the owner of the
neighboring property. A replat would allow the utility
companies and Public Works to assess the easement situation
as well.
Staff believes it is appropriate to defer this issue to
allow the applicant to review his options. The utility
companies have been approached by staff for an informal
response to the possibility of leaving the structure where
it is.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the
November 24, 1997 Board meeting.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 27, 1997)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred to allow for
resolution of the property line and easement issues. The
applicant had earlier agreed to the deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
November 24, 1997 Board meeting with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,
0 absent and 2 open positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 24, 1997)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff recommended that the item be deferred one more time to
allow for resolution of the property line and easement issues.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
December 22, 1997 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent
and 2 open positions.
K
March 30, 1998
Item No.: A (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 1997)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Board that no progress
had been made toward resolving the property line and easement
issues.
Mr. Carter addressed the Board and requested one more deferral.
He stated that he was still working with his neighbor to resolve
the replat issue.
In response to a question from Kirby Rowland, Staff noted that
the first deferral was at staff's suggestion and that this would
be the second deferral charged to the applicant.
A motion was made to defer the item
meeting. The motion was approved by
1 absent and 2 open positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
to the January 26, 1998
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
(JANUARY 26, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and informed the Board that it appeared
Mr. Carter was making some progress toward resolving the property
line and easement issue.
Mr. Carter stated that the replat had been in a civil engineer's
office for two months. He presented a proposed replat which
appeared to address the property line issue. Staff suggested
giving Mr. Carter a deferral to the February 23, 1998 meeting.
This is to allow him time to resolve the easement issue and to
complete the replat. It would also give staff time to review the
issue based on the replat.
A motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1998
Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 23, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the plat issue still had not been
resolved.
Larry Carter informed the Board that he lacked only Entergy's
sign -off on the plat. He stated that he was trying to come to an
agreement over liability insurance required by the utility. He
asked for one more deferral.
3
March 30, 1998
No.: A !Cont.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 30, 1998 Board
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 3 open positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 30, 1998)
The applicant, Larry Carter, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Board that Mr. Carter
had been unable to resolve the plat issue and he was going to
relocate the structure. Staff also informed the Board that
Mr. Carter had requested that his application be withdrawn.
Mr. Carter offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
4