For Office Use Only

CASE #_Z^}^- «io$"?-y

FEE PAID ^^ *M>

DATE 0^ 0 10\S

For Office Use Only

ZONE ^!

CRITICAL AREA: IDA_LDA^ RCA

BMA: Yes

NO. OF SIGNS

NOI'L: I. ml b. ii;i. i.

Applicants): Karen & Kerry Bailey

VARIANCE APPLICATION^nd .tslk-d i. 'ut ulil]/;riL; Auohc Uc (^'r ^i;'nii;. i: p'< ;

Letter of Explanation

We are proposing to construct a 12' x19'open deck on the rear of the existing single family

dwelling. The deck will come 12' in projection out from the house, and 19' wide along the rear of the

house. There will be a set of steps to grade on both ends of the deck, both consistingof only two stairs

each. The deck will be 24" from grade to deck surface in height, and will therefore NOT need handrails

by building code. This will create a very small profile in visual aesthetics and height. The existing house

is a two story dwelling with attached garage, and the dwelling is approximately 28 feet in overall height

from grade to roof.

The property is EXTREMELY unique. There is a developed road on three of the four sides of the

property, making it more of a peninsula lot than a corner. Larkington Drive is found on both the East

and West sides of the lot, with Lands End Way on the South side of the lot. Furthermore/ there is a

residential lot abutting the North property line (Lot 45, Section 1 of "Larkington"}.

The open deck is proposed to remain 37' from the rear property line, which is much more than

the required R5 rear setback requirement of 10'. However, the Southpointe subdivision that includes

this lot is considered a Cluster and therefore all structures must remain 50' feet from the boundary line

of the subdivision. Even more restricting, the provision that typically allows open decks to project 10'

into rear setbacks does not apply for some reason to the boundary line setback! The adjacent property

which as we said is another residential lot, is considered to be in another subdivision ("Larkington").

Therefore, the only reason we do not meet setbacks is because the neighboring residential lot is

somehow another subdivision name and thus the rear property line of this lot is actually a boundary

line. Therefore we are requesting a 13' variance to the required 50' setback.

This request is obviously very minor in nature in that the boundary line is a technicality and not

a true boundary separating a residential subdivision from another use such as industrial or commercial

land. Furthermore, the deck is very low to the ground on a nearly flat piece of land, and in no way

would detract or impinge on the only neighboring residential tot, .... especially since the proposed deck is

still 37' from the property line. We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Tl -(ON SURVEY:

^^^T^^^^Sm^S^BSSS^^^^^'^^^^^^r»?JfuwSRTvS^S^ONNDFOR THEESTABUSHMENTOR LOCATION OF FENCES. GARAGES. BUiLDINGS. OR OTHER EXISTING OR

?^^T.^^^^^T^Kg^^SSSS S^SS^'UHESI WWISIaEmRC"'»'^''^

LARKINGTON DRIVE(EX. 40' COUNPf R/W)

S63-15'49"E 109.71'-5

2-OKS3T^Ow&ERv, '-;'1

£-