header-left
File #: V18-034    Version: 1 Name: V18-034 - 1515 Walker St
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 4/6/2018 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 4/11/2018 Final action: 4/11/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-034 - Allow increase in impervious coverage maximum from 35% to 54.3% of lot area - Land Lot 593 - 0.11 acres - 1515 Walker Street - Tanner Gard
Impact
WARD: 3

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-034 - Allow increase in impervious coverage maximum from 35% to 54.3% of lot area - Land Lot 593 - 0.11 acres - 1515 Walker Street - Tanner Gard


Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for 1515 Walker Street to 26 feet, and side setback reduction to 8 feet for an addition to a single-family residence. The development standards established by the City for the R-15 zoning district require a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet and a driveway setback of 5 feet. The applicant is also requesting an increase in impervious coverage from 35% to 54.3%. The existing house is non-conforming at 53.7% impervious coverage. This request is associated with V18-032 - V18-034.


BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the R-15 zoning district, which requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet, side setback of 10 feet, and impervious coverage maximum of 35%. The applicant requests variances to maintain the existing non-conforming setbacks and marginally increase the non-conforming impervious coverage to remove a deck and build an addition in its place. 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) standar...

Click here for full text