header-left
File #: V17-054    Version: 1 Name: V17-054 - 2552 S Cobb Dr
Type: Appeal Status: Passed
File created: 11/3/2017 In control: City Council
On agenda: 1/16/2018 Final action: 1/16/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Appeal the denial by the License and Variance Board for V17-054 - Allow accessory structure in front yard of commercial property - 4.95 acres - Land Lot 345 - 2552 S Cobb Drive - SunTrust
Sponsors: Susan Wilkinson
Attachments: 1. Issue Sheet V17-054 Appeal denial by LVB SunTrust stand alone ATM.pdf, 2. 2552 S Cobb - Variance Appeal, 3. Revised Plan for Mayor and Council, 4. Application, 5. Original Variance Site Plan, 6. 11-08-2017 November 8, 2017 LVB Minutes Final.pdf
Impact
WARD: Ward 5

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Appeal the denial by the License and Variance Board for V17-054 - Allow accessory structure in front yard of commercial property - 4.95 acres - Land Lot 345 - 2552 S Cobb Drive - SunTrust

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance for the placement of a free standing Automated Teller Machine (ATM) at 2552 South Cobb Drive. The proposed location of the ATM will be in the front yard of the property, in the parking lot 50 feet from the front property line, however the canopy will extend within the front setback. Per Section 501.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, accessory structures are prohibited in the front or side yards.


BACKGROUND: The License and Variance Board denied the request (3-0) at the November 8, 2017 hearing. The applicant is appealing that decision.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: 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 not to be in compliance with the standards, based on the lack of hardship. No variances for similar structures have been approved, thus, approval of the request would set a negative precedent. At the time of this report, there has been no public objection to the request. After a review of the standards above, Community Development believes that there is no justifiable hardship for the accessory structure in the front yard and approval would set a negative precedent; theref...

Click here for full text