powered by Legistar InSite
File #: PZ 23--004    Version: 1
Type: Variance Status: Passed
File created: 2/6/2023 In control: City Council
On agenda: 3/6/2023 Final action: 3/6/2023
Title: Variance Request to Table 2-2 of UDC to reduce the minimum rear setback from 35-feet to 15-feet, for a 360-sf accessory structure. The property is located at 4234 Pinetree Drive, within land lot 800 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia. PIN: 19080000370.
Attachments: 1. Shed renderings., 2. Shed under construction, 3. Interior of tool shed., 4. 4234 Pinetree Drive. Variance Application Redacted, 5. Executed PZ 2023-004

CASE NUMBER:    PZ 23-004

APPLICANT: Jorge Villagomez Flores

VARIANCE REQUEST: Variance Request to Table 2-2 of UDC to reduce the minimum rear setback from 35-feet to 15-feet, for an accessory of 360-sf for small tool storage.

LOCATION:  4234 Pinetree Drive

ZONING:    R-20                                           ACRES:  .46± acres                      PIN: 19080000370

Staff Recommendation:  Approval with conditions.

 

Planning and Zoning Recommendation:

 

BACKGROUND:  Applicant is requesting variance to continue construction of an accessory shed, that was not originally permitted.

SURROUNDING AREA: Please see attached Figures 1-4, which provide zoning of surrounding properties, aerial view of subject property and elevations of existing primary and accessory structure for which the variance is sought.

Figure 1. Current Zoning: R-20

 

 

 

 

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 applicant’s property is similar to other adjacent and nearby properties as it relates to size and configuration. The applicant’s parcel, similar to other adjacent and nearby properties, is relatively deep, with established deciduous vegetation at the rear of the lots.

 

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 the applicant may have mistakenly located the accessory structure in this location given it is one of the largest, flat areas on the property given a cursory review of 1-foot contour information.

 

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 adjacent and nearby properties would also be entitled to construct accessory structures on their respective properties, provided they complied with provisions of Table 2-2 of the UDC or sought a variance to locate in a similar location as requested by 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 if certain conditions are applied to an approval of this request, the proposed accessory structure in its modified location will not have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby properties. Since the shed is greater than 144-sf, it is subject to the same setback requirement as principal structure, additionally it is subject to architectural design review for appearance and materials consistent with the principal structure.

 

 

5.                     The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant. It is staff’s opinion that the applicant could have sought a permit, which could have eliminated the need for a variance “after the fact”.

 

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.  Given that the construction of the accessory structure is almost complete in its current location, the requested variance appears to be the minimum to allow for the structure to complete the permitting and inspection process.

 

 

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 structure, with or without a variance for location, is permitted by right in the R-20 zoning district. The applicant is allowed a shed of 360-sf, as it complies with the maximum size restrictions for an accessory structure.

 

                     

 

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

 

1.                     Applicant to properly permit the accessory structure, to include design review approval.

2.                     No water service or connection to be extended to the structure.

3.                     No habitable space to be provided within the structure.

4.                     No business inventory of any type to be stored within the structure, personal use only.

5.                     No vehicular access drive or path to be provided from Pinetree Drive to the structure.

6.                     Only one small porchlight to be permitted under the front porch section of the structure, so to avoid casting any additional lighting on the adjacent properties.