Skip to main content
header-left
File #: 2019-383    Version: 2 Name: V19-047 - 3215 Dunn St
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 10/18/2019 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 10/23/2019 Final action: 10/23/2019
Title: Public Hearing - V19-047 - Reduce Collier Drive setback from 23.3 feet to 18 feet - Land Lot 524 - 0.56 acres - 3215 Dunn Street - John Robert Rankin & Susan E. Rankin
Attachments: 1. Issue Sheet, 2. Varmemo_V19-046-047.pdf, 3. Application_V19-046-047.pdf, 4. SitePlan_V19-046-047.pdf, 5. Elevations_046-047.pdf

Impact

WARD:  Ward 6

 

COMMITTEE:  Community Development

 

$ IMPACT:  N/A

 

Title

Public Hearing - V19-047 - Reduce Collier Drive setback from 23.3 feet to 18 feet - Land Lot 524 - 0.56 acres - 3215 Dunn Street - John Robert Rankin & Susan E. Rankin

Body

ISSUEThe applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the Collier Drive streetside setback from 23.3. feet to 18 feet and a second variance to reduce the interior side setback from 12 feet to 10 feet to renovate and add onto an existing home. The current structure is a 2,278 sq. ft. one and a half story home. Section 1202 of the zoning ordinance requires a streetside setback of 23.3 feet on Collier Drive and Section 801 of the zoning ordinance requires a side setback of 12 feet for the R-20 zoning district.

 

BACKGROUND:  None.

 

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTIONThe applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the R-20 zoning district, which requires a minimum streetside setback of 23.3 feet on Collier Drive and a side setback of 12 feet. The applicant requests a variance to reduce the streetside setback to 18 feet along Collier Drive to build a two-car garage at 3215 Dunn Street. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to reduce the side setback to 10 feet for a 14 foot section of the home to be renovated. According to Section 1403 of the Zoning Ordinance, variances must be reviewed under the following standards: (1) Whether there are unique and special or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property; (2) Whether any alleged hardship is self-created by any person having an interest in the property; (3) Whether strict application of the relevant provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property; and (4) Whether the variance proposed is the minimum variance needed. Community Development has reviewed the request against the variance review standards and found it to be in compliance with four (4) of the four (4) standards. At the time of this report, Community Development has not received any phone calls regarding the variance request. After a review of the standards above, Community Development believes that the encroachment will not adversely affect surrounding residents; therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the following condition:

 

1.                     Approval of the requested variance shall be conditioned upon the development of the property in substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with the variance application.