The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About380-BAP DATE: April 4, 1996 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Stephen C. Richardson, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request for a five foot variance to the required 25 foot front yard building setback for a residence in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District. The Planning Director recommends approval of the variance to allow a 20' setback instead of the required 25' for property in the district. Mr. Kenneth W. Chaney owns Lots 25 and 26, Block 1, Glen Oaks Addition. His assigned address is 4495 Glen Oaks Circle. He is in the process of building his own home. Up to this point in time, Mr. Chaney is doing this without the services of a building contractor and without the aid of competent professional advice. When be purchased his building permit he asked what the front yard building setback was for his two lots and was informed by counter personnel in Building Codes Division that the minimum setback for the house was 25 feet from the street. He did not understand that "street" meant from the common street right-of-way line and front property line measured to the proposed slab. Glen Oaks Circle has a 50' right-of-way and a 27' wide pavement back of curb to back of curb. He measured about 25' from the curb and this resulted in an encroachment of 5' into the 25' setback. Exhibits are attached. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notices Mailed to Property Owners: 17 Responses in Favor: Responses in Opposition: Board of Adjustment City of Beaumont March 21, 1996 Answering Condition A, B and C: Condition A: In Concideration of this variance and allowing me to leave the existing foundation in place, my neighborhood should not be effected. Only about five feet of my front bedroom inproaches the twenty five feet set back. Condition B: I was told by a Building Code Personnel that the 25 feet set back was from the street. She did not tell me that the set back was from the property line. Based on the information I proceeded to place the slab and began framing my house. 'To the best of my knowledge I thought I was doing what was right and proper. Condition C: I was in the spirit of the ordinance as established by the City and agreed upon by a member of the technical staff that it was okay to proceed. The price to remove that portion of the slab would not be in my best interest. The integrity of the entire slab would be in jeopardy. The decision to start construction and complete my house and enhance the neighborhood was done in the best interest of all parties concerned, I will beautifully landscape my property by planting shrubbery and trees to keep up the image already established in this sub -division. Sincerely, Kenneth Chaney CITY OF BFAUMONT PONNING DIVISION RECEIVED 1, Kenneth Chaney owner of the property located at 4495 Glen Oak Circle Lot No. 25 and 26 do hereby request that the City of Beaumont grant me the request of leaving my existing slab. I have spoken with all the neighbors to see if it would be a problem with the foundation being twenty feet from the property line instead of twenty five feet from the property line. If I had known the proper way there would have never been a error in the five feet of the property line. If the slab is to be corrected the financial expense could cause me to have the whole slab done over because it would cause a defect in the structural of my home. I am sorry for this mistake, a first time house owner and builder and this was one thing that I just did not know. I have tried to do every thing to the best of my knowledge and obey the City regulation. I asked a Building Code Personnel verbal about the footage on where the slab was to be poured and was given an incorrect answer or I miss understood her answer. As a home owner I will beautifully landscape my property by planting scrubby and trees to keep up the image already established by the Glen Oak Circle sub -division. I ask that the City please grant my request and allow the existing foundation stay as is. Sincerely, Kenneth Chaney CITY OF BFAUMONT PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED =11IM1111im" 3 e4e na ti r yer. 4 PILE 380-BA: To consider an application to vary the building NORTH "`---.. setbacks for a proposed single family structure located within the RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District. LOCATION: 4495 Glen Oak Circle APPLICANT: Kenneth W. Chaney 1/200 n Y 1r Yam, AM r A t 010 YY w 0 ,fmoo 1 /1(1 1Q! O tQ Y'b t ' r $6 o < �► F s 'Yr � SUBJECT w° low tit M 0 Ito R� o /it F-1 RM I Isar 1n P w d " ow M Pas 4 fi p �r � FILE 380-BA M REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE The Board of Adjustment is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all of the following conditions have been met: CONDITION A: That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. CONDITION B.- That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations, or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions. CONDITION C: That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. ANALYSIS CONDITION A: Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. When the existing 20' setback is added to the 11.5' between the property line and the street curb there is a total separation of 31.5 feet between the house slab and the edge of the concrete street. The views of drivers will not be affected by the 5' encroachment. CONDITION B: If the property owner is denied a 5' variance he will be forced to demolish his house slab and start over. This will cause an extreme hardship on him. The applicant relied on Building Codes personnel to explain the setback regulations. He apparently misunderstood what he was told when obtaining his building permit. He is acting as his own contractor. CONDITION C: The spirit of the ordinance will be observed and justice will be done if the 5' variance is approved. GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILITIES APPLICANT: Kenneth W. Chaney PROPERTY OWNER: Kenneth W. Chaney GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILITIES continued LOCATION: 4495 Glen Oaks Circle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 25 and 26, Block 1, Glen Oaks Addition EXISTING ZONING: RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: x C (Minimal) B (Moderate) A (100 year) Floodway SIZE OF PROPERTY: 0.36 acres, more or less EXISTING LAND USES: Homesites, slab and partial framing SURROUNDING USES: SURROUNDING ZONING: NORTH: Residences RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District EAST, Residences RS SOUTH: Wooded tracts RS WEST. Vacant lot and house tinder construct on RS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Stable Area OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES: None STREETS: Glen Oaks Circle is a residential 50'wide right-of- way with a 27' wide concrete pavement with "laydown" curbs. No sidewalks were constructed. DRAINAGE There is a 24" storm sewer in Glen Oaks Circle. WATER: There is a 6" water line in the street. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE: There is a 6" to 8" sanitary sewer in the street. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by Station #8, Hwy. 105 @ Lampman. ADEQUACY OF SERVICE: Services and utilities are adequate.