powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 23--014    Version: 1
Type: Variance Status: Passed
File created: 5/24/2023 In control: City Council
On agenda: 8/21/2023 Final action: 8/21/2023
Title: Variance Request to UDC Table 2-2 related to minimum setback requirements for accessory structures. The property is located at 3220 Caley Mill Drive, within land lot 720 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia. PIN: 19072000710.
Indexes: MIT FY 23 - Safety & Protecting Community (code enforcement, stormwater)
Code sections: Table 2-2 - Dimensional Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts
Attachments: 1. Approved PZ 23-014, 2. Variance Application. 3220 Caley Mill Dr Redacted, 3. Existing conditions, 4. Executed PZ 2023-014 to table to August 21, 2023

CASE NUMBER:    PZ 23-014

APPLICANT:  Susana Ortiz

VARIANCE REQUEST: Variance Request to Table 2-2 of UDC to reduce the minimum side setback from 10-feet to 8-feet, for a 168-sf accessory structure for storage.

LOCATION:  3220 Caley Mill Drive

ZONING:    R-15 C                                           ACRES:  0.2 ac                  PIN: 19072000710

Staff Recommendation:  APPROVAL.

Planning and Zoning Recommendation:

BACKGROUND:  Applicant is requesting variance to continue construction of an accessory shed, that was not originally permitted. Work was intercepted by Code Enforcement. Table 2-2 of the Powder Springs UDC requires accessory structures larger than 144 square feet to be setback 30 feet from a rear property line, and 10 feet from the side.

The current location of the shed is within the limits of the detention pond on her property, as shown in figure two. The proposed new location clears the required minimum rear setback as well as the pond, however, it would require a 2-feet reduction for the side setback. The applicant also initially proposed to install a fence to close in her yard, but the new site plan has removed the proposal for the full enclosure of the back yard.

 

SURROUNDING AREA: Please see attached Figures 1-5, which provide zoning of surrounding properties, aerial view and plat of subject property, elevations of existing primary dwelling, the current condition and proposed finished elevation, and sketch site plan of the accessory structure for which the variance is sought.

Figure 1.  Current Zoning: R-15 C

Figure 2. Aerial View with contours and shed location. Recorded plat showing Detention Pond and Drainage Easement.

 

 

Figure 3. Front elevation

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Current conditions (left). Proposed finished elevation of accessory structure (right).

 

 

Figure 5. Site plan

 

 

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.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that the smaller lot size of the applicant’s property is not applicable to those larger lots contiguous to the west, which make it difficult to allow for an accessory structure without the requested relief. Staff has observed that a 30-foot setback applied to the proposed accessory structure would place it very close to the rear of the primary structure and potentially reducing open/recreational space in the rear yard.

 

A drainage easement is located on the opposite side of the property, and there is a detention pond shown on the plat and confirmed by the elevation contour lines.

 

Given the location of the Detention Pond, staff recommend relocation of the entire structure to a new location in the rear yard. Staff would be supportive of a side setback reduction if the applicant relocates the shed outside of the pond, as shown in figure 5.

 

 

  

 

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.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that applying a 30-foot setback to the proposed accessory structure, would place it very close to the rear of the primary structure potentially reducing open/recreational space in the rear yard as enjoyed by other adjacent and nearby properties. However, since a detention pond exists, it limits the options available for locating the shed.

 

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.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that other adjacent and nearby properties have existing accessory structures similarly situated to the general location requested by the applicant.

 

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.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that with appropriate restrictions (as recommended by staff), no adverse effect upon adjacent properties is anticipated.

 

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

 

Recognizing that the applicant may have started construction without a permit, it is Staff’s opinion that the applicant was attempting to maintain an adequate amount of separation between the rear of the principal structure and the proposed accessory structure. Additionally, the existence of the pond further limits the location options.

 

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. 

 

It is staff's opinion that the applicant’s request is the minimum to bring the proposed structure into conformity with Table 2-2 of the UDC. Additionally, if the square footage of the proposed structure were reduced by 24 square feet, the side yard setback would only be 5 feet.

 

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.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that an accessory storage structure is not a use of the land that would not be permitted within the R15C zoning district.

                     

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL, with the following conditions:

 

If the applicant relocates the shed to meet rear setback, staff would be supportive of a reduction in the required side setback from 10-feet to 5-feet, provided that:

 

1.                     The applicant shall submit a Design Review Application to the Community Development Department. Penalty fees for work done without a permit will be assessed at that time.

 

2.                     The applicant shall have 30-days to relocate the shed. The allowed time to comply will start at the time of Design Review approval from the Community Development Department.

 

3.                     The shed shall be used for personal storage only; no business or commercial storage permitted.

 

4.                     No plumbing shall be be provided to the proposed structure; no habitable space shall be included.

 

5.                     The front door/entrance of the proposed accessory structure may have one low intensity light fixture. No lighting of any type on sides or rear of proposed accessory structure.

 

6.                     The exterior of the accessory structure shall match the exterior of the principal dwelling, subject to Design Review approval from the Community Development Department.