HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7089 Staff AnalysisNovember 26, 2001
Item No.: B
File No.: Z-7089
Owner: William F. Ward
Address: 19 Arles Drive
Description: Lot 52, Block 48, Chenal
Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from
the area regulations of
Section 36-254 to permit a new
single family residence with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification
is presented in an attached
letter.
Present Use of Property: Single family residential
Proposed Use of Pro ert Single family residential
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
A new, one-story brick single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located
at 19 Arles Drive. After construction, the applicant
found that the southwest corner of the structure was
only approximately 4.7 feet from the south (side)
property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum side yard setback of 6.9 feet.
November 26, 2001
Item No.: B
According to the applicant, it is his opinion that the
survey pin at the southwest corner of the property was
originally placed in the wrong location, giving the
residence a 9 foot side setback (at the southwest
corner) when it was first laid out. This is further
supported by the fact that the water meter for this lot
was placed 4 to 5 feet onto the property to the south.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance, given
the fact that an apparent error was made in the
original property survey. The southwest corner of the
structure represents an appropriate 32 percent
encroachment into the required side yard. The
southeast corner of the structure complies with the
minimum setback requirement, as the structure angles
away from the south (side) property line. Staff
believes that the survey mistake was not intentional
and that the applicant did not knowingly place the
residential structure within the required side yard
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard
setback variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff noted that the application needed to be
deferred based on the fact that the applicant did not notify
the property owners within 200 feet of the site as required.
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the October 29, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff noted that the applicant had requested that
the application be deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda,
based on the fact that the applicant had not notified the
property owners within 200 feet of the site as required.
E
November 26, 2001
Item No.: B
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 26, 2001)
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 =
as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
3