header-left
File #: V17-057    Version: 1 Name: V17-057 - 660 Burbank Cir
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 12/11/2017 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 1/10/2018 Final action: 1/10/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-057 - Allow increase in accessory structure size from 25 percent of primary structure to 27.5 percent - 0.24 acres - Land Lot 375 - 660 Burbank Circle - Keith Nelson
Attachments: 1. VarmemoV17-057.pdf, 2. APPLICATION.pdf
Impact
WARD: 5

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V17-057 - Allow increase in accessory structure size from 25 percent of primary structure to 27.5 percent - 0.24 acres - Land Lot 375 - 660 Burbank Circle - Keith Nelson

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a detached accessory structure at 660 Burbank Circle greater than 25% of the primary structure. The applicant proposes to build an accessory structure 27.5% of the primary structure. Section 501 controls the maximum allowable size and height of accessory structures.


BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the City’s maximum size requirement for an accessory structure, which is established in Section 501.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 requests against the variance review standards and found them to be in compliance with the review standards. Similar variances for accessory structure height and area increases have been granted, and Community Development believes that the requested variance will not adversely affect surrounding residents. At the time of this report, Community Development has not received any phone calls in opposition to the variance requests. Therefore, Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance with the following condition:

1. Approval of the subject property for the requested variance s...

Click here for full text