Skip to main content
header-left
File #: 2021-215    Version: 1 Name: V21-048 - 995 Mclinden Avenue
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 5/27/2021 In control: City Council
On agenda: 6/7/2021 Final action: 6/7/2021
Title: Public Hearing - V21-048 - Allow second accessory structure - Land Lot 451 - 995 Mclinden Avenue - Sam Whited
Attachments: 1. Issue Sheet 2021-215 - 995 Mclinden Avenue - Ward 3.pdf, 2. Varmemo_V2-048-049.pdf, 3. Application_V21-048.pdf, 4. Shed Elevations_V21-048.pdf, 5. Site Plan_V21-048.pdf
Impact
WARD / COUNCILMEMBER: Ward 3 / Travis Lindley

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - V21-048 - Allow second accessory structure - Land Lot 451 - 995 Mclinden Avenue - Sam Whited

Body
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow a second accessory structure at 995 Mclinden Avenue to maintain an existing shed. Additionally, the applicant is rectifying a previously approved variance and reducing the streetside setback from 23.3 feet to 15 feet for a newly constructed detached garage. The development standards established by the City for the R-15 zoning district require a minimum streetside setback of 23.3 feet and the number of accessory structures is required based upon the standards associated with Section 501 of the Zoning Code.

RECOMMENDATION / REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City to allow for a second accessory structure and a streetside setback reduction. 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 variance will not adversely affect surrounding residents; therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variance with the following condition:

1. Approval is conditioned upon substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with the varia...

Click here for full text