TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Mikayla Layral - Planner II
DATE: October 13, 2026
RE:Title
A26-45: A variance at 2951 Darien Dr. (0426781549000) to reduce the corner side setback from 30 ft. to 20 ft. in a Single-Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district owned by Donald & Tonya Watkins. Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 5 - Councilman Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: Economic & Strategic Growth
• Objective 2.6: To manage the City’s future growth and strategic land use.
Goal 3: Desirable Place to Live, Work, & Recreate
• Objective 3.5: To ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required corner side setback, from 30 ft. to 20 ft. The subject property is a corner lot developed with an existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and deck that are approximately 20 ft. from the corner side property line. The variance would allow the existing structures to remain in their current location and permit the addition of a roof over the existing deck. The proposed roof will remain within the existing deck footprint and will not result in any additional encroachment into the required setback.
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: Donald & Tonya Watkins
Applicant: Kyle Speese, Titan Decks LLC
Requested Action: Reduce the corner side setback from 30 ft. to 20 ft.
Zoning District: SF-10 (Single Family Residential 10)
Property Address: 2951 Darien Dr.
Size: 0.14 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o South - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o East - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o West - SF-10 Single Family Residential
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the minimum setbacks established in Article 30-3.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned SF-10 (Single Family Residential 10), which requires buildings to be 30 ft. from the corner side property line. Per the applicant, the subject property is a corner lot, which is subject to setback requirements along two street frontages and results in a reduced buildable area compared to an interior lot. The existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and deck are located approximately 20 ft. from the corner side property line and were constructed prior to the applicant’s ownership.
The property is located within a zero-lot line development, where the established development pattern includes reduced setbacks between residential structures and interior property lines. The application originally requested a building permit to allow a roof to be constructed over the existing deck. Because the existing dwelling, garage, and deck are also located approximately 20 ft. from the corner side property line, the requested variance encompasses the entire corner side property line to address the existing setback nonconformity and allow the deck roof to be permitted. The proposed roof will remain within the existing deck footprint and will not create any additional encroachments into the required setback.
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):
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:
The applicant states that strict application of the 30 ft. corner side setback would require the applicant to demolish or substantially alter portions of an existing house and attached garage that were already in place at the time of purchase and have functioned as a residence for years without incident. Requiring compliance now would impose a hardship the cost, disruption, and structural risk of partially removing or rebuilding a portion of an inhabited dwelling that bears no reasonable relationship to any benefit the setback is intended to protect, particularly where the applicant seeks only to formalize the existing condition and add a roof that stays entirely within the structure's current footprint.
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:
The applicant states the hardship stems directly from the property's status as a corner lot. Unlike an interior lot, which must satisfy a setback requirement along only one street frontage, this parcel is subject to setback requirements along two street frontages simultaneously, materially reducing its buildable envelope relative to lots of comparable size elsewhere in the district. This is a physical and locational characteristic of the parcel itself, not a generalized condition of the neighborhood and is the direct cause of the existing encroachment.
The practical difficulties and hardships affecting this property result from unique circumstances related to the land, and not from any action of the applicant, personal circumstances, or conditions common to the neighborhood. The property is zoned SF-10 and is a corner lot. As a corner lot, it is subject to setback requirements along two street frontages rather than one, which reduces the buildable area of the parcel compared to a typical interior lot of the same size. This is a physical and locational characteristic of the land itself. The existing house, garage, and deck that encroach into the corner side setback were constructed prior to the applicant's ownership of the property. The applicant did not create this condition and has not taken any action to extend or worsen the existing encroachment. The only proposed change a roof over the existing deck remains within the deck's current footprint. The hardship is not related to any personal circumstance of the applicant and would apply equally to any owner of this property. It is also not common to the neighborhood generally but results specifically from this parcel's corner-lot configuration and SF-10 zoning. For these reasons, the hardship is attributable to unique circumstances of the land, not to the applicant's action, personal situation, or conditions shared generally throughout the neighborhood.
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:
The applicant states the requested variance is narrowly tailored to the existing, as-built condition: a 10 ft. reduction (from 30 ft. to 20 ft.), that matches precisely the line already established by the existing house, garage, and deck. No additional encroachment is requested. The proposed deck roof will not extend beyond the deck's current footprint and will not project past the existing rooflines of the house or garage the variance authorizes nothing more than what already physically exists on the ground.
The requested variance is the minimum action necessary to allow reasonable use of the existing structures. The variance requests a reduction of the corner side setback from 30 feet to 20 feet an amount that matches exactly the existing, as-built location of the house, garage, and deck, and requests no greater reduction than what is already present on the ground. No expansion of the footprint of the house or garage is proposed. The only new construction requested is a roof over the existing deck, which will remain entirely within the deck's current footprint and will not extend beyond the existing rooflines of the house or garage. The variance therefore authorizes no additional encroachment into the setback beyond what already exists. A lesser variance would not resolve the nonconformity of the existing structures, and a greater variance is not requested. This is the minimum relief necessary to bring the existing house, garage, and deck into conformance and to allow the applicant reasonable use of the deck by adding a cover.
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 applicant states the corner side setback exists to preserve adequate light, air, sightlines, and separation between structures and the street. Because the applicant is not proposing to move, expand, or extend any structure closer to the property line than it already sits, the variance does not diminish light, air or separation beyond what has existed for years. Granting the variance brings existing conditions into formal conformance without altering the physical relationship between the structures and the street that neighbors and the public already experience today.
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:
The applicant states the variance concerns only the classification of existing, already constructed improvements; it does not authorize new construction closer to the property line, does not affect sight distance at the corner, drainage, or emergency access, and introduces no new impact on adjoining properties or the public right-of-way. Denying the variance would serve no corresponding public safety benefit, while granting it allows the applicant to bring a long-standing residential condition into lawful conformance the outcome substantial justice supports
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 30 feet to 20 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::Recommended Action
N/A
end
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