Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Denial 809 Los Pros topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies shed and FAR variances for 809 Los Pros de Guadalupe Drive NW
Summary
The commission unanimously denied two variance requests for 809 Los Pros de Guadalupe Drive NW: a 7‑foot variance to permit a 70‑sq‑ft shed 3 feet from the west lot line, and a large variance to the floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) limitation tied to existing development. Staff found the requests lacked the property‑specific hardship required for approval.
The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously denied two related variance requests Jan. 14 for a property at 809 Los Pros de Guadalupe Drive NW.
The first request (V‑247) sought to place a 70‑square‑foot accessory shed 3 feet from the west side lot line (a 7‑foot deviation from the 10‑foot side‑yard requirement). The second (V‑248) sought a variance of approximately 24,357 square feet to the village’s floor area ratio limit to recognize existing development and the proposed shed. Planning staff reviewed subdivision, setback and FAR provisions and recommended denial for both requests, concluding the applicants had not shown the unusual site characteristics and demonstrated hardship necessary for a variance.
Applicant testimony: Kelly Rogers, the property owner, told the commission the lot is irregular and the side yard next to the house is the only practical location for storage, and that HOA and architectural‑review committee approvals were obtained. She also said prior work on the house included permitted construction and that she bought the house with those permits in place.
Commission rationale: Commissioners asked staff and the applicant about permit history and how an apparently large existing home came to be permitted where the FAR limit appears to have been exceeded. Staff confirmed permits had been pulled at various times but could not fully reconcile the FAR discrepancy in the hearing record. Given insufficient evidence of a property‑specific hardship, the commission denied both variances by roll call vote.
Next steps: Commissioners urged staff to research the permit history and suggested the applicant consult village staff about possible alternatives. The denials leave the current development as existing non‑conforming status pending any separate corrective or appeal actions.
