header-left
File #: V17-027    Version: 1 Name: V17-027 & 028 - 1408 Collier Drive
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 6/9/2017 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 6/14/2017 Final action: 6/14/2017
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-027 - Allow reduction of driveway setback from 5 ft. to 3 ft. - 0.647 acres - Land Lot 557 - 1408 Collier Drive - Margaret Shannon/George and Lisa Wannamaker
Attachments: 1. 1408 Collier Drive - Staff Memo, 2. 1408 Collier Drive - Site Plan, 3. 1408 Collier Drive - Application
Impact
WARD: 6

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-027 - Allow reduction of driveway setback from 5 ft. to 3 ft. - 0.647 acres - Land Lot 557 - 1408 Collier Drive - Margaret Shannon/George and Lisa Wannamaker

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the driveway setback from 5 ft. to 3 ft. and to allow encroachment into the city 75 ft. impervious setback for 1408 Collier Drive. The applicant proposes resurfacing the existing driveway and to construct an addition to the single family house. The existing driveway is non-conforming with respect to the driveway setback and impervious setback. This request is associated wtih V17-028.


BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the R-20 zoning district, as well as the impervious setback requirement. The applicant requests encroachment into the 75 ft. impervious setback, where impervious materials currently exist and a driveway setback reduction where a driveway currently exists. 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 ...

Click here for full text