TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: April 9, 2024
RE:
Title
A24-15. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: Variance to reduce the minimum required lot size for a lot in the SF-10 Zoning District totaling 0.21 acres ±, located at 449 McPhee Drive, and being the property of Thomas Michael Lecka.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 - Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 4.5 - Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the minimum required lot size for a lot in the SF-10 Zoning District.
On March 12, 2024, the Zoning Commission held an Evidentiary Hearing regarding this case. After receiving all evidence and testimony, the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Variance application.
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 condition of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Applicant: Michael Adams
Owner: Michael Lecka
Requested Action: Reduce minimum lot size requirement in SF-10
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 0 McRae Drive (0427432094000)
Size: 0.21 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Vacant/Wooded
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: SF-10 - Single Family Residence
• South: SF-6 - Single Family Residence
• East: SF-10 - Single Family Residence
• West: SF-6 - Single Family Residence
Postcards Mailed: 34
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property was granted to Thomas Michael Lecka by Sanjay Khazanchi on June 5th, 2023. The most recent plat for the subject property was recorded in January 1953. (DB 11760-0103; PB 0016-0003)
The applicant requests the recombination of two existing lots (one non-compliant) to create two buildable lots. While one resulting lot meets the minimum square footage requirement, the other falls short. A variance is therefore requested to allow the development of the second, undersized lot.
Section 30-3.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance outlines the minimum lot area per unit in the Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district. The minimum lot sizes for various building types in SF-10 are as follows:
Single Family Detached Dwellings - 10,000 sq. ft.
Single Family Attached Dwellings - 9,000 sq. ft.
Two- to Four- Family Dwellings - 7,500 sq. ft.
All Other Principle Uses - 10,000 sq. ft.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum required lot size from 10,000 sq. ft. to 9,128 sq. ft., as shown on the attached site plan.
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 minimum lot area 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 “The second lot is being asked for to build a single-family house on it for family members. The applicant's lot will be reduced as much as possible to try and allow for this. Without this variance, the second lot would not be able to be built on. The neighbor to the east has been approached to acquire 8' of their property which would bring the second lot into compliance, but they are unwilling to sell.”
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 zoning on this side of the street is restricting the subdivision of this lot. If this property were zoned similar to the lots to the south and west, this second lot would comply.”
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 variance requested is the best that can be accomplished with these two lots. The second lot is 872 square feet short of complying.”
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 “If the variance is approved, the resultant lot would create another taxable lot and would allow for a single-family residence to be built, therefore maximizing the intent of the ordinance.”
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “If variance is approved, it will allow for family members to relocate next to the applicant therefore saving gas to travel which in turn helps the environment.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
1. Approve Findings as submitted by staff.
2. Approve Findings with specific changes.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends option 1 above.
Attachments:
1. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact
2. Application
3. Aerial Notification Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Land Use Map
6. Subject Property Photos
7. Surrounding Property Photos
8. Site Survey