TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: February 11, 2025
RE: A25-02: Variance Request - Accessory Building Size at 118 Johnson Street
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 - D.J. Haire
Relationship to Strategic Plan:
• Goal 2: A Responsive City Government Driving Economic Diversity and Sustainability
o Objective 2.1: Strengthen and diversify the City’s tax base.
• Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
o Objective 4.5: Foster vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods.
Executive Summary
The applicant, Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church, represented by Alex Parham, seeks a variance from City Code Section 30-3.E.5, which limits accessory structures to the lesser of 1,500 square feet or 30% of allowable lot coverage. The request proposes a 2,400-square-foot accessory building to secure the Church’s vans and other belongings, exceeding the current size restriction.
Property Information
• Address: 118 Johnson Street
• Owner: Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church
• Applicant: Alex Parham
• Zoning: CC (Community Commercial) and MR5 (Mixed Residential 5)
• Existing Use: Religious Institution
• Parcel Size: ±5.39 acres
Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses
• North (across Johnson St.) - SF6 (Single-Family 6), single-family housing
• South/Southwest (4926 Bragg Blvd.) - MR5 (Mixed Residential 5), adjoining Church property
• East (across Bickett St.) - MR5 (Mixed Residential 5), apartments
• West (4938 Bragg Blvd.) - CC (Community Commercial), vacant
Issues & Analysis
Variance Request Overview
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 30-3.E.5 Note 2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which limits accessory structures to the lesser of 1,500 square feet or 30% of lot coverage. The proposed 2,400-square-foot structure exceeds these limits.
Factors for Consideration
• Ordinance Compliance: The variance exceeds prescribed size limits for accessory structures. The commission must determine if this request aligns with the ordinance’s intent to regulate building scale in the CC district.
• Land Use Compatibility: The proposed structure would be larger than typically permitted, requiring an assessment of its impact on adjacent properties.
• Precedent Concerns: Approval could set a precedent for future variance requests. The commission must review long-term implications.
• Alternative Compliance Options: The commission may evaluate whether alternative solutions allow compliance while meeting the applicant’s needs.
Conclusion
This request presents a legitimate need for additional secure storage space but exceeds dimensional limitations in Section 30-3.E.5 Note 2. The variance review must assess compliance with UDO Section 30-2.C.14.f, which requires findings that:
1. Hardship arises from the ordinance’s strict application, not personal circumstances.
2. Unique site conditions (e.g., lot size, topography) necessitate the variance.
3. The variance is the minimum action necessary for reasonable use.
4. The variance aligns with the ordinance’s intent and preserves its spirit.
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained.
The Zoning Commission must evaluate evidence to determine compliance with these criteria. Key considerations include:
• Alternative compliance options that adhere to existing regulations.
• Potential precedents from granting a variance of this scale.
• Compatibility with the ordinance’s broader goals for the CC district.
The decision must align with evidentiary procedures in Sections 30-2.B.14 and 30-2.C.14 of the UDO.
Budget Impact
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options for Commission Action
The Zoning Commission may:
1. Approve the variance if all five findings of fact are met.
2. Approve with conditions to mitigate concerns.
3. Deny the variance if one or more findings of fact are unmet.
Motion to Approve the Variance (as requested or with conditions)
If approved, the commission must state supporting evidence for all five required findings:
1. Hardship due to strict ordinance application
________________________________________________________________
2. Hardship results from unique site conditions
________________________________________________________________
3. Variance is the minimum action necessary
________________________________________________________________
4. Variance preserves the ordinance’s intent
________________________________________________________________
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained
________________________________________________________________
Motion to Deny the Variance
The commission must identify which of the five findings were unmet, providing specific evidence if denied.
1. Hardship due to strict ordinance application
________________________________________________________________
2. Hardship results from unique site conditions
________________________________________________________________
3. Variance is the minimum action necessary
________________________________________________________________
4. Variance preserves the ordinance’s intent
________________________________________________________________
5. Public safety and welfare are maintained
________________________________________________________________
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