header-left
File #: V18-044    Version: 1 Name: 1375 Twin Oaks Cir - V18-044
Type: Variance Request Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 6/8/2018 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 6/13/2018 Final action: 6/13/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-044 - Allow side setback reduction from 12 feet to 8 feet for an attached garage addition to a single family residence - 1.15 acres - Land Lot 555 - 1375 Twin Oaks Circle - Charles Spencer
Attachments: 1. Issue Sheet, 2. Varmemo18-044&045.pdf, 3. SITE PLAN.pdf, 4. EXISTING PLAN.pdf, 5. APPLICATION.pdf
Impact
WARD: 6

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-044 - Allow side setback reduction from 12 feet to 8 feet for an attached garage addition to a single family residence - 1.15 acres - Land Lot 555 - 1375 Twin Oaks Circle - Charles Spencer

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side setback from 12 feet to 8 feet in order to construct an attached garage addition on a single family home at 1375 Twin Oaks Lane. Section 801 requires a side setback in R-20 zoning district of 12 feet. The applicant will also require relief from the City’s 75 ft. Impervious Surface Setback as required in Chapter 46, Article VI. This request is associated with V18-045.

BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the side setback of 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side setback to 12 feet to construct an attached two-car garage to a single family residence. The applicant also requires relief from the City’s 75 ft. Impervious Surface 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. Similar variances have been approved throughout the city. At the time of this report, Community Development has not received any phone calls regarding the variance re...

Click here for full text