powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 21--026    Version: 2
Type: Variance Status: Passed
File created: 8/10/2021 In control: City Council
On agenda: Final action: 9/20/2021
Title: Variance: 1422 Paddocks Way – To vary Sec. 6-23 of the UDC
Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1. Driveway at 1422 Paddocks Way.pdf, 2. Variance. Driveway. Paddocks Drive.pdf, 3. Letters of support from neighbors..pdf, 4. Signed PZ 21-026.pdf

STAFF REPORT

 

CASE NUMBER: PZ 21-026 

 

APPLICANT: Jerod Bush

 

PETITION: Request to vary Sec. 6-23 of the UDC to allow a driveway that exceeds the Maximum Driveway Width. 

 

LOCATION: 1422 Paddocks Way, within land lot 599 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, and Cobb County, Georgia. 

 

ZONING: R20.              ACRES:  acres                      PIN: 19059900590

 

STAFF RECCOMMENDATION: Denial                      

 

BACKGROUND: 

Mr. Bush was cited with a code enforcement warning for parking on street and on grass. He then constructed an extension to his existing driveway at his single-family residence without a permit. He was cited for code violations related to the driveway extension and subsequently applied for a driveway permit, which was denied on the grounds that it violated the maximum driveway width provisions of vary Sec. 6-23 of the UDC.

 

 

Figure 1. Applicant Submitted photo of expanded driveway.

 

 

 

Figure 2. Aerial of 1422 Paddocks Way prior to driveway expansion.

 

 

SURROUNDING AREA:

The subject address is located within the Paddocks West Subdivision and is surrounded by residential uses on all sides. To the north is R30 in the County, and R20 in the City on all other sides.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Variance Requests are reviewed by criteria set forth in Article 14 of the Unified Development Code. The application was reviewed against the following criteria:

 

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.

 

                     No extraordinary and exceptional conditions exist.

 

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 would NOT result in deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others in the area. The driveway standards are intended to maintain uniformity with residential zoning districts. This driveway extension violates the maximum limits of a residential driveway. It is considerable larger than any other in the area and could potentially result in negative impacts within the district due to:

•                     Violation of code provisions for maximum allowable parking spaces / maximum allowable vehicles parked, or commercial vehicles in residential districts. The expansion violates Sec 6-73, which specifies 4 parking spaces as the maximum number of off-street parking spaces for a single-family residence. 

•                     The edge of the driveway is approximately 4’ from the property line which violates the 5’ minimum distance from side boundaries specified in Sec <insert code section>

•                     Additional water runoff negatively impacting adjacent property due to the increase in the impervious area.

 

 

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 this variance would in fact provide a special privilege that others in the area are not afforded.

                     

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 development code intends to establish standards for uniformity within residential districts. This driveway extension is in violation of the uniformity standards and intent of the UDC.

 

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

 

The applicant’s actions directly resulted in these special circumstances. He admits to not knowing that a permit was required or that there were limits to the width of his driveway, per the provisions of the UDC. He constructed this driveway in response to a code violation warning citation without consulting the Community Development Department. Staff believes that Mr. Bush is being honest and forthright when he asserts ignorance to the code, however, ignorance does not relieve him from having to comply with the provisions of the UDC.

 

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. 

 

This driveway, in its current condition, far exceeds the maximum limits. Mr. Bush essentially has two full driveways in his front yard. The extension he added is approximately as wide as the primary driveway, and it is longer than the primary driveway as it extends into the side yard back to the fence line. Mr. Bush installed concrete of dimensions 22’ x 67’ to the right of his existing driveway which covered the area from his fence to the edge of the roadway. Using tools available in ARC GIS, staff estimates that his driveway width is now 46’ exceeding the maximum width provision of 24’ in Sec. 6-23 of the UDC. Additionally, this expansion extends 15’ (approx.) into the right-of-way. 

 

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.

 

                     This driveway, in its current condition, in not permitted in R20.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.

Staff finds no grounds on which to base an approval of this Variance Request, and therefore recommends denial.