Skip to main content
header-left
File #: V18-036    Version: 1 Name: V18-036 - 2870 Green Cove Way
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 4/20/2018 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 4/25/2018 Final action: 4/25/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-036 - Allow rear setback reduction from 25 feet to 17 feet to extend a deck on a single family residence - Land Lot 487 - 0.17 acres - 2870 Green Cove Way - Will and Amanda Cox
Attachments: 1. Varmemo18-036, 2. SITE PLAN, 3. APPLICATION
Impact
WARD: 3

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-036 - Allow rear setback reduction from 25 feet to 17 feet to extend a deck on a single family residence - Land Lot 487 - 0.17 acres - 2870 Green Cove Way - Will and Amanda Cox
Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 17 feet in order to extend the existing deck at the rear of the single family home. Section 801 controls front setbacks in residential zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to extend a deck at an existing single family residence. The existing deck extends from the house about 12 feet. The applicant would like to maintain the same depth and build a new covered deck across the width of the home. However, the rear lot line is not parallel to the rear of the home, and angles towards the home on the north side. Thus, while the majority of the deck is within the 25 ft. rear setback, the north corner of the deck will encroach the setback by 8 feet due to the angle of the rear property line.


BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the rear setback of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear setback to 17 feet to build a new covered deck. 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 ...

Click here for full text