Skip to main content
header-left
File #: V19-017    Version: 1 Name: 2685 Brown Cir - V19-017
Type: Variance Request Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 4/5/2019 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 4/10/2019 Final action: 4/10/2019
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V19-017 - Allow encroachment into City 75 foot Impervious Surface Setback - 0.77 acres - Land Lot 489 - 2685 Brown Circle - James Mackinder
Attachments: 1. Varmemo19-017, 2. APPLICATION
Impact
WARD: 3

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V19-017 - Allow encroachment into City 75 foot Impervious Surface Setback - 0.77 acres - Land Lot 489 - 2685 Brown Circle - James Mackinder

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow encroachment into the City’s 75 ft. Impervious Surface Setback by approximately 5 feet. The applicant plans remodel the existing home and build an addition on the rear of the existing home. Stream buffers are controlled by Chapter 46. The subject property is occupied by an existing single-family residence, constructed in 1943; prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances. The applicant is proposing an 18 ft. by 18 ft. addition on the rear of the house. The existing house is 1,342 sq. ft; below the 2,000 sq. ft. floor area minimum. Including the addition, the house will increase to 1,665 sq. ft. To build the addition the applicant is requesting a reduction of the 75 ft. Impervious Surface Setback by approximately 5 ft. The subject property is substantially larger than most lots in the area, however the location of the stream greatly reduces the buildable area of the lot.



BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting relief from the city’s 75 ft. Impervious Surface Setback to remodel the existing home with an addition. 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...

Click here for full text