header-left
File #: 2020-309    Version: 1 Name: 1429 Walker Court- V20-043
Type: Variance Request Status: Passed
File created: 8/6/2020 In control: License and Variance Board
On agenda: 8/12/2020 Final action: 8/12/2020
Title: Public Hearing - Variance Request V20-043 - Reduce side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet - Land Lot 560 - 1429 Walker Court - Arnaldo & Angela San Martin
Attachments: 1. Varmemo_V20-041-43.pdf, 2. Application_V20-041-043.pdf, 3. Elevations_V20-041-043.pdf, 4. Impervious Calculation_V20-041-043.pdf, 5. Site Plan_V20-041-043.pdf
Impact
WARD / COUNCILMEMBER: Ward 3 / Travis Lindley

$ IMPACT: N/A

Title
Public Hearing - Variance Request V20-043 - Reduce side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet - Land Lot 560 - 1429 Walker Court - Arnaldo & Angela San Martin

Body
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking several variances to allow for the construction of a new swimming pool on the subject property. These variance requests include a side setback reduction, rear setback reduction, and an impervious surface increase. Section 801 sets the setback requirements and maximum impervious area in the RDA zoning district while Section 501 governs accessory structures.

RECOMMENDATION / REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to deviate from the development standards established by the City for the following: maximum impervious area of 45%, rear setback of 5 feet, and side setback of 10 feet. The applicant is requesting variances to increase the impervious surface area from 45% to 48%, reduce the rear setback from 5 feet to 3 feet, and to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. 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. At the time of this report, Community Development has not received any calls in opposition to the request. After a review of the standards above, Community Development believes that the encroachment will not adversely affect surrounding residents; th...

Click here for full text