header-left
File #: 2021-043    Version: 1 Name: 2424 Goodwood Boulevard - V21-009
Type: Variance Request Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 2/4/2021 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 2/10/2021 Final action: 2/10/2021
Title: Public Hearing - V21-009 - Allow vertical construction on non-conforming deck - Land Lot 702 - 2424 Goodwood Boulevard - Florence Haines
Attachments: 1. Issue Sheet, 2. Varmemo_V21-009.pdf, 3. 1997 Variances_V21-009.pdf, 4. Application_V21-009.pdf, 5. Building Plans_V21-009.pdf, 6. Site Plan_V21-009.pdf
Impact
WARD / COUNCILMEMBER: Ward 2 / Austin Wagner

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - V21-009 - Allow vertical construction on non-conforming deck - Land Lot 702 - 2424 Goodwood Boulevard - Florence Haines

Body
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the continuation of a non-conforming deck for the construction of an enclosed porch on a single-family residence at 2424 Goodwood Boulevard. The applicant received approval for two variances in 1997 (Variance Case - V97-020 and V97-021) for a rear yard setback reduction of 30 feet to 10 feet and a side setback reduction of 10 feet to 8 feet, respectively. Since the proposed deck enclosure is outside the scope of the originally approved variances and the variance time frame has expired, the applicant is required to request another variance. The development standards established by the City for the RTD zoning district require a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and rear yard setback of 30 feet.

RECOMMENDATION / REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the RTD zoning district, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and rear setback of 30 feet. 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. After a review of the standards above, Community Development believes that the encr...

Click here for full text