TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Alannah Ward - Planner I
DATE: May 8, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-17: A variance request to reduce required setbacks at 1012 Albert St (0438604254000), owned by Julius D. Robinson.end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: A Responsive City Government Driving Economic Diversity and Sustainability
• Objective 2.1: Expand and diversify the City’s tax base to promote long-term fiscal resilience and economic stability.
Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
• Objective 4.5: Support the development of vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods that enrich the quality of life for all residents.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required corner side and side yard setbacks - from 25 feet and 10 feet, respectively - to 7.4 feet for each setback, in order to utilize the small parcel for residential construction.
Per Section 30.2.C.14, variances are intended to provide relief from dimensional standards in cases where exceptional conditions - beyond the landowner’s control - create a unique hardship under the strict application of the Ordinance. Variances do not authorize changes to permitted uses or modify conditions of approval, and they are to be granted only under limited and specific circumstances.
Background:
Owner: Sanjay Khazanchi
Applicant: Michael Adams
Requested Action: Reduce setbacks to allow construction on narrow parcel.
Zoning District: MR-5 (Mixed-Use Residential 5 District)
Property Address: 1012 Albert St
Size: 0.11 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - Public Right-of-Way and MR-5 (Vacant Land)
o South - MR-5 (Single Family Houses)
o East - MR-5 (Vacant)
o West - Public Right-of-Way and MR-5 (Single Family House)
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the minimum setbacks established in Article 30-3.D.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned MR-5 (Mixed Residential 5), which requires buildings to be 25 feet from the corner side property lines and 10 feet from the side property lines. The subject property, located at 1012 Albert St, is 37.4 feet by 125 feet, giving a total land area of 4,675 square feet. Complying with the required setbacks in this zoning district would result in a buildable area of 2.4 feet by 85 feet, or a total of 204 square feet. Reducing the setback requirements to the requested 7.4 feet on the corner side and side property lines would increase the buildable area to 1,582 square feet.
The variance is being sought to allow the applicant of the subject property to make use of the parcel, due to the full setback requirement limiting the buildable square footage to an unrealistic level to build on. The applicant has selected a very narrow building plan to fit within the requested variances to the setback requirements. Allowing for a variance from setback requirements will allow for construction of a home on a lot where it otherwise would not be possible.
Insufficient Justification for a Variance:
The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a Variance:
• The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts;
• A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district; or
• Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval of the Variance.
Findings of Fact (Based on Applicant’s Responses):
The findings are based on the applicant’s responses to the submitted application and the most reliable information regarding the proposal before any testimony is presented at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
Deeded lot width is too small to apply current setback standards to be built upon
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
No physical difficulties present on site. The biggest difficulty is applying the current setback standards and being able to build upon the lot.
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
A very narrow house plan has been picked for construction to try and help obtain as much setback as possible within the confinements of the lot size.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The variance will allow for a single family house to be built that in all other ways would not be allowed under the current conditions.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
This variance is the best use possible for the lot with its current restrictions.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact associated with this request.
Options:
The board has the authority to approve or deny the request based on the five required findings of fact. Members must assess the evidence and determine whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships based on the land’s unique characteristics.
If a member believes that the evidence presented is substantial, competent, and sufficient to meet the required findings of fact, then the member may make a motion to approve the variance. The members must state all five findings of fact, along with the evidence presented to support each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under any of the five findings of fact, they must consider a motion to deny the claim. The motion should indicate which of the five findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on the variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance, they should provide a brief statement recapping the evidence that supports each of the five findings of fact. Any discussion by the Board following a motion may include a recap of the evidence supporting each of the five factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback from 25 feet to 7.4 feet, and the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.4 feet.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_____________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
The motion is to approve the variance(s) as requested but with added conditions.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the variance as requested.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
Recommended Action:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan