TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Heather Eckhardt, CZO - Planner II
DATE: March 12, 2024
RE:
Title
A24-04. Variance to reduce minimum setbacks, located at 2936 Mirror Lake Drive (REID 0417978540000), and being the property of Benjamin & Victoria Stout.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 - Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 4: Desirable Place to Live, Work and Recreate
• Objective 4.5 - Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the corner side yard and rear yard setbacks for the property located at 2936 Mirror Lake Drive.
This item was initially scheduled for the January 9th Zoning Commission however, due to inclement weather, the meeting was rescheduled for January 17th. At the January 17th meeting, the Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
Due to concerns regarding notification of citizens, after the meeting date was changed, this item is being reheard. Staff is treating this evidentiary hearing as a new case. The case was readvertised and new letters were sent out to the required surrounding property owners.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner's control (such as exceptional topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue and unique hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Owner/Applicant: Benjamin & Victoria Stout
Requested Action: Reduction of corner side yard and rear yard setbacks
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 2936 Mirror Lake Drive
Size: .5 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: SF-10 - Single family house
• South: SF-10 - Single family house
• East: SF-10 - Single family house
• West: SF-10 - Single family house
Letters Mailed: 29
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property was subdivided in 2000 as part of Vanstory Hills Section 9-D. The owner and applicant purchased the property in November 2023. The subject property was not altered in size or shape prior to the purchase or after.
Section 30-3.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance outlines the setbacks required for the Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district. The UDO requires the following setbacks:
- Front: 30 feet
- Corner Side: 30 Feet
- Side: 10 feet
- Rear: 35 feet
The subject property is located at the corner of a short cul-de-sac. The subject property has an unusual shape due to its location on a corner and a cul-de-sac. The unusual shape results in 384.17 feet which are required to meet a front yard/corner side yard setback of 30 feet. Additionally, the subject property has a short rear lot line at only 49.33 feet in length.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the required setbacks to the following:
- Front: No change
- Corner Side: 15 feet along the cul-de-sac street and 10 feet on the bulb
- Side: No change
- Rear: 5 feet
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance:
1. The siting of other nonconforming or conforming uses of land or structures in the same or other districts;
2. The request for a particular use expressly, or by inference, prohibited in the district; or
3. Economic hardship or the fact that property may be utilized more profitably with a Variance.
Subsequent Development
The applicant intends to construct a house on the subject property in the future. The applicant does not have specific plans for the house at this time but would like to address the setback restrictions at this time.
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and the best available information about the proposal without the benefit of testimony provided 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:
The applicant states “There are a number of issues that are contributing to our hardship. The primary difficulties are the lot has two "side yards" as it sit on a cul de sac creating an unusual lot shape. In addition it was subdivided with the old setbacks, prior to the UDO.”
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 “As previously stated the lot faces two street being on Mirror Lake and Hartford Place being a cul de sac, thus creating challenging setback.”
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 shape creates difficultly building envelope and to resolve this is the only option.”
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 “We plan on building a SFR home which will fit in with all the other homes in the area. By granting this variance it will allow the home to blend in better as it won't have weird angles and shapes.”
5. There is 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:
The applicant states “It will not impact the neighbors as we plan on being great neighbors.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
The Board’s Authority: The board has the authority to approve or deny the request and must base its decision on the answers to the following five required findings of fact:
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 and the members must state all of the following five findings of fact along with the evidence that was presented to satisfy each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under all five findings of fact, the members must consider a motion of denial. A motion of denial should indicate which of the five (5) of the findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on any variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance they should make a brief statement that recaps the evidence showing 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 (5) factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback to 10 feet and 15 feet and reduce the rear yard setback to 5 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 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. 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 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 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. 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:
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