header-left
File #: V17-016    Version: 1 Name: 1836 Roswell Street - V17-016
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 3/2/2017 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 3/8/2017 Final action: 3/8/2017
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-016 - Allow encroachment into City 50 ft. undisturbed buffer and 75 ft. impervious setback - 21.69 acres - Land Lot 663 - 1836 Roswell Street - Avonlea Square, LLC - Mark Keappler, Manager/Kevin Moore, Attorney
Attachments: 1. Staff Memo - V17-016, 2. Application - V17-016
Impact

WARD:  2

COMMITTEE:  Community Development

$ IMPACT:  N/A

Title

Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-016 - Allow encroachment into City 50 ft. undisturbed buffer and 75 ft. impervious setback - 21.69 acres - Land Lot 663 - 1836 Roswell Street - Avonlea Square, LLC - Mark Keappler, Manager/Kevin Moore, Attorney

Body

ISSUE:  The applicant is requesting a variance to allow encroachment into the City’s 50 ft. Undisturbed Stream Buffer. The applicant is proposing a playground and nature park within the buffer. Regulations regarding stream buffers are located in Chapter 46, Article VI - Stream Buffer Protection. City Engineer and Community Development staff reviewed the request and have no objections so long as there is no further increase of imperivous area within the buffer area.

BACKGROUND:  None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant is requesting to deviate from the stream buffer regulations established in Chapter 46, Article VI. The applicant requests encroachment into the city 50 ft. undisturbed buffer and 75 ft. impervious setback. 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 sur...

Click here for full text