powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 24-027    Version: 1
Type: Variance Status: Public Hearing
File created: 7/22/2024 In control: City Council
On agenda: 10/7/2024 Final action: 10/7/2024
Title: Variance Request. To vary UDC Table 2-2 minimum dimensional requirements for accessory structures greater than 144-sf. The property is located at 3654 Hopkins Court, within land lots of the 19th district, 2nd section, Cobb County Georgia. PIN: 19079400710
Code sections: Table 2-2 - Dimensional Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts
Attachments: 1. 3654 HOPKINS CT SW_Redacted, 2. PZ 24-027 Tabled to Oct 7

PZ24-027

APPLICANT: Florencia Borja

VARIANCE: Variance Request to Table 2-2 of UDC to reduce the minimum side setback for an accessory structure greater than 144-sf.

LOCATION:  3654 Hopkins Court.

ZONING:    MDR                                                           PIN: 19079400710

Staff Recommendation:  Denial                                          Planning and Zoning:

 

BACKGROUND: The property at 3654 Hopkins Court is a duplex located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district of Powder Springs. The current variance request pertains to a two-story accessory storage shed with a footprint of approximately 145 square feet. The structure was initially constructed without the appropriate permits and was situated within a utility easement at the rear of the property. Following an inspection by Code Enforcement, a stop work order was issued, and the shed was subsequently relocated to the side property line, where it now sits four feet from the property line on the connected side of the duplex.

Per Table 2-2 of the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC), accessory structures larger than 144 square feet in the MDR zoning district are required to maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the side property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. The current location of the shed does not comply with these setback requirements.

The applicant, Ms. Borja, who purchased the property in March 2023, has explained that her father constructed the shed to provide additional storage space after her parents downsized and temporarily moved in with her. The initial review by the building inspectors identified several deficiencies in the shed's construction, necessitating a detailed foundation plan and framing plan, which have not yet been provided. The applicant's father is willing to modify the shed to a one-story structure, which, if reduced to 144 square feet or less, and could meet the minimum five-foot side setback requirement and not require a variance.

However, staff has concerns regarding the two-story structure, particularly its impact on the neighboring duplex and its visual prominence within the row of backyards. The variance request is being evaluated in this context, with consideration of the applicant’s situation and the broader implications for neighborhood aesthetics and compliance with zoning regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

SURROUNDING AREA: The subject property is in the duplex development of Hopkins Court. Residential uses prevail on all sides. Others in the area, including the neighbor to the north, have storage sheds in their back yards; however, no two-story storage sheds exist in the area.

Figure 1. Current Zoning: R-1C

Figure 2. Aerial View

 

 

Figure 3. Current Condition of the partially constructed shed. 2-stories.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Utility Easement across rear yard of subject property.

 

Figure 5. Code violation summary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS:

The application was reviewed against the following criteria:

 

Any applicant requesting consideration of a variance to any provision of this development code shall provide a written justification that one or more of the following condition(s) exist. The governing body shall not approve a variance application unless it shall have adopted findings that one or more of the following conditions exist:

 

 

1.                     There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions or practical difficulties pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography that are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same district.

 

The subject property at 3654 Hopkins Court does not exhibit extraordinary or exceptional conditions, practical difficulties, or unique characteristics related to its size, shape, or topography that would distinguish it from other properties in the MDR zoning district. The lot is a standard duplex property with a typical rectangular shape and relatively flat topography, similar to adjacent properties.

The difficulties experienced by the applicant, including the need for additional storage space due to family circumstances, are not inherently tied to the physical characteristics of the property itself but rather to personal circumstances and decisions regarding the construction of the shed. The structure’s non-compliance with setback requirements is a direct result of the applicant’s choice to locate the shed within the utility easement initially and later on the side property line, rather than any unique physical constraints of the lot.

 

2.                     A literal interpretation of the provisions of this development code would effectively deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties of the district in which the property is located.

 

A literal interpretation of the provisions of the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC) would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district. The UDC establishes uniform setback requirements for accessory structures, which are designed to ensure consistency, safety, and aesthetic harmony across all properties within the district.

 

The applicant’s request to maintain a two-story shed within the reduced setback area is a deviation from the standard rights granted to other property owners in the district. Other property owners who wish to build accessory structures larger than 144 square feet are required to adhere to the same setbacks of 10 feet from the side property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. These requirements are not arbitrary but are in place to prevent overcrowding, reduce visual obstructions, and maintain a reasonable separation between structures for safety and privacy reasons.

 

 

3.                     Granting the variance requested will not confer upon the property of the applicant any special privileges that are denied to other properties of the district in which the applicant’s property is located.

 

Granting the variance requested would confer a special privilege upon the applicant’s property that is denied to other properties within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district. The variance would allow the construction of a two-story accessory structure that encroaches significantly into the required side setback, a condition not typically permitted under the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC).

 

 

4.                     The requested variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this development code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or to the general welfare.

 

The requested variance does not align with the purpose and intent of the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC) and could be injurious to the neighborhood and general welfare. The UDC is designed to promote orderly development, protect property values, and ensure the safety and aesthetic appeal of neighborhoods. These goals are achieved through the enforcement of consistent setback requirements, which help maintain adequate space between structures, provide for light and air circulation, and preserve the visual character of the area.

Granting a variance to allow the two-story shed to encroach into the required side setback would undermine these objectives. The shed’s proximity to the neighboring duplex, only four feet from the shared side property line, creates a visual obstruction and could negatively impact the neighbor’s enjoyment of their property. This close placement may also pose potential safety concerns, particularly related to fire hazards or structural issues, as the building inspector’s initial review already noted the need for detailed foundation and framing plans.

 

5.                     The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant.

The special circumstances leading to the variance request are directly the result of the actions of the applicant. The decision to construct a two-story shed without obtaining the necessary permits and initially placing it within a utility easement was made by the applicant or her representatives. These actions, which were not in compliance with the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC), created the need for a variance.

When the structure was found to be in violation by Code Enforcement, the applicant chose to relocate the shed to the side property line, where it now sits four feet from the connected side of the duplex, again failing to meet the required setbacks. This situation is a consequence of the applicant's choices rather than any unavoidable circumstances related to the property itself.

 

6.                     The variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the proposed use of the land, building, or structure in the use district proposed. 

 

The requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the proposed use of the shed on the applicant's property. The primary purpose of the shed is to provide additional storage space for the applicant, which could be achieved with a smaller, one-story structure that complies with the setback requirements of the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC).

If the shed were reduced to 144 square feet or less, it would be allowed by right to be a minimum of five feet from the side property line, eliminating the need for a variance altogether. The applicant has indicated a willingness to reduce the shed to one story, which suggests that the two-story height and current location are not essential for the proposed use of the structure.

 

7.                     The variance shall not permit a use of land, buildings or structures, which is not permitted by right in the zoning district or overlay district involved.

The requested variance does not involve a use of land, buildings, or structures that is not permitted by right in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district. Accessory structures, such as storage sheds, are allowed within the MDR district, provided they comply with the applicable setback, height, and size requirements outlined in the Powder Springs Unified Development Code (UDC).

The variance being sought is specifically related to the dimensional and setback requirements for the shed, not the use itself. Therefore, approving this variance would not authorize any new or prohibited use of the property. The variance pertains solely to the location and height of the structure, which, if modified to comply with the UDC, would be a permitted use by right within the zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:  DENIAL. A two-story shed shall not be allowed.

 

The two-story height of the shed is out of character with typical accessory structures in the neighborhood, which are generally single-story and appropriately scaled. The visibility of the structure from surrounding properties creates a visual obstruction and could negatively impact the neighbor’s enjoyment of their property.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The staff recommends that the applicant reduce the shed to one story with a maximum footprint of 144 square feet or less. The shed must be relocated to maintain a minimum setback of five feet from the side property line, as allowed by right under the UDC. Additionally, the shed's placement shall be subject to staff review and approval to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and to minimize any potential negative impact on the neighboring properties and the overall character of the neighborhood.

This course of action would allow the applicant to achieve their storage needs while adhering to the established zoning requirements, maintaining neighborhood consistency, and protecting the general welfare.