Staff Report
File #: PZ 20-022
APPLICATION: Variance APPLICANT: Vernon and Edith Hagen
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Recommendation: Pending
Mayor and Council Decision: Pending
PETITION:
Variance for accessory and primary structures due to property line reconfiguration at 3978 Old Austell Road in Land Lot 904.
PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST:
To allow for conformity
LOCATION: 3978 OLD AUSTELL RD; 4115 ATLANTA ST SW; 4109 ATLANTA ST SW; 4127 ATLANTA ST SW
PARCEL ID#: 19090400250; 19090400260; 19090400270: 19090400280
Zoning: R15
Location Map
Background:
The subject site is located along Atlanta Street and Old Austell Powder Springs Road. The subject site falls within the residential (R15) zoning district which requires a front setback of 35 feet; side setback of 10 feet; and rear setback of 30 feet; accessory structures 144 square feet or less requires a side and rear setback of 5 feet. According to the tax assessor, the site consists of four (4) lots that are owned by the applicant (Vernon and Edith Hagen). The applicant is requesting to reconfigure lots into three (3) lots. There are no approved plats by the City of Powder Springs recorded at Cobb Superior Court. There is one survey that was recorded in 1934. This survey shows the site consisting of 3 lots. The configuration of the last recorded plat does not match the lots as shown by the tax assessor. The lot has been sold over the years by a metes and bounds description.
Plat recorded 1934 (PB 003 Pg 160)
The structures on the property, according to the tax assessor were built as follows:
4127 Atlanta Street - 1930
3978 Old Austell Road - 1946
The tax assessor does not have information regarding the third house on the property.
Current lot configuration per Cobb County tax assessor -
The tax assessor has reconfigured the parcel lines in this past year. The applicant presented a plat creating the large parcel shown above. This plat was marked as “NA” for the City approval and was recorded.
The houses were constructed prior to the establishment of the zoning ordinance. The property currently does not meet the setback due to reconfiguration and lack of previously approved and recorded plats. The proposed reconfiguration indicated in Exhibit 1 would allow for structures to be located in the setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow full conformity meeting the setback of today’s code. The reconfiguration has resulted in structures highlighted in red not meeting the current Unified Development Code. Staff notes that the applicant is applying for a variance because of the request for re-plat. If there were no change to the property, then the variance would not be required. Variances B and D are a direct result of the lot line reconfiguration.
Structures not meeting current Unified Development Code
A. Reduction of the primary structure from 35 feet to 23.6 feet from the front setback, 1930
B. Reduction of the metal awning from 10 feet to 7.8 feet from the side setback, >1930
C. Reduction of the primary structure from 35 feet to 31.6 feet from the front setback, 1906
D. Reduction of the accessory structure from 35 feet to 22 feet from the rear setback, >1906
Surrounding Land Use:
The subject site is surrounded by residential zoning designation to the west, north and south. East of the subject site has a commercial designation (Community Retail Commercial). The surrounding existing uses are single-family residential.
Analysis:
In accordance with Section 14-24 of the Unified Development Code, staff has reviewed the application and has determined that one or more of the conditions required by Section 14-24 for issuing a variance exist as follows:
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;
There are currently no extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions associated with this site. However, the structures indicated on the proposed survey has been built in the early 1900’s that predates the existing Unified Development Code. The reconfiguration has caused the location of existing structures not meeting the current Unified Development Code setback requirement. In making all structures conforming a variance has been requested.
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;
The literal interpretation of the Unified Development Code would deprive the applicant the right commonly enjoyed by homeowners. The location of all structures have been there for many years. The location of these structures have not posed a public health and safety concern and is not anticipated to be of any concern due to property line reconfiguration.
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 will not confer any special privileges. The homeowner is proposing to reconfigure his property boundary and is taking the necessary steps in making all structures conforming to the existing development code.
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 structures have been built in the early 1900’s and have not posed any public health and safety concern. There is adequate space to the front side and rear, and the location is also consistent with the neighboring lots. The requested variance is for structures that have built in the early 1900’s that has never been injurious to the neighborhood or the general welfare of the community.
5. The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant;
The circumstances that exists are not a result of the applicant. The UDC specifically provides setback requirements to provide consistency throughout our City. Structures were built in the early 1900’s in making all structures complaint the applicant is requesting a variance.
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; and/or
The applicant and owner has indicated that this is minimum variance that will make possible the proposed use of the land.
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 variance will not permit a use of land, building or structure, which is not permitted by right in the zoning district overlay involved. All structures seeking a variance are structures that are allowed in the residential zoning district. Additionally, the current code does not allow multiple single family structures on one parcel. This plat revision corrects this issue.
Fiscal Impact:
The proposed request should not have any negative economic impact on the City of Powder Springs resources.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of PZ 20-022 with conditions: Variance request is consistent with the requirements of the Unified Development Code.
Summary and Recommendation:
1. To approve variance to allow structures within the setback as follows:
A. Reduction of the primary structure from 35 feet to 23.6 feet from the front setback
B. Reduction of the metal awning from 10 feet to 7.8 feet from the side setback
C. Reduction of the primary structure from 35 feet to 31.6 feet from the front setback
D. Reduction of the accessory structure from 35 feet to 22 feet from the rear setback
2. Variance must be approved by Community Development and Public Works before final approval and recordation of plat.
Exhibit 1
Proposed lot reconfiguration