header-left
File #: V18-060    Version: 1 Name: 621 Highview Dr - V18-060
Type: Variance Request Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/7/2018 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 9/12/2018 Final action: 9/12/2018
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-060 - Allow front setback reduction from 35 feet to 22 feet for an addition to a single family residence - Land Lot 384 - 0.32 acres - 621 Highview Drive - Jacob and Laura Tilton
Attachments: 1. Varmemo - 18-060, 2. SITE PLAN, 3. ELEVATIONS, 4. APPLICATION
Impact
WARD: 4

COMMITTEE: Community Development

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request - V18-060 - Allow front setback reduction from 35 feet to 22 feet for an addition to a single family residence - Land Lot 384 - 0.32 acres - 621 Highview Drive - Jacob and Laura Tilton

Body
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front setback from 35 feet to 22 feet in order to construct an addition on an existing single family home at 621 Highview Drive. Section 801 requires a front setback in R-15 zoning district of 35 feet. The subject property is non-conforming as the minimum lot size for R-15 is 15,000 sq. ft., and the subject property is 13,939 sq. ft. The subject property is also a corner lot with front setbacks along Highview Dr. and Cherrydale Ln. Additionally, the existing structure is facing the intersection, rather than either road frontage, leaving minimal area to construct the addition


BACKGROUND: None.

RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the front setback of 35 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front setback to 22 feet to construct an addition to a single family residence. 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 t...

Click here for full text