Title
ZV(R)2025-0017 & 0018
Elizabeth Casey, 2011 NW 100 Avenue (District 2)
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:
Elizabeth Casey, owner, submitted two residential zoning variance requests to legalize an existing driveway for the single-family residence located at 2011 NW 100 Avenue in the Victoria Lakes community, which is zoned Residential Single-Family, Zero Lot (R-1Z).
In July 9, 2023, the City’s Code Compliance Division cited the property for a driveway built without permits, Code Case No. 230702837.
On March 13, 2024, the owner submitted Building Permit Application No. RX24-02688 to construct a driveway at the property; however, the permit application cannot be approved as the existing work exceeds the limitations of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC). The petitioner is providing a copy of the updated property’s showing existing conditions for the following requests:
• ZV(R)2025-0017: to allow 68% front lot coverage (total) instead of the required 40% front lot coverage (total) for an existing driveway in a residential single-family property, zero lot.
• ZV(R)2025-0018: to allow zero-foot (0’) augmenting to two-foot (2’) side setback instead of the required five-foot (5’) side setback along a segment of the eastern property line for an existing driveway in a single-family residential property, zero lot.
Per the survey for the requests, the applicant confirms the removal of an 8.6’ x 10.7’ roofed structure located into the east side required setback. City’s LDC Section 155.652 (C) (3) restricts construction on the non-zero lot side where the structure existed.
The petitioner is aware that Board consideration of residential variance requests does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permits.
The subject property is in Victoria Lakes neighborhood. The owner has provided a copy of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Letter, dated February 15, 2024.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R) 2025-0017) is to allow 68% front lot coverage (total) instead of the required 40% front lot coverage (total) for an existing driveway in a residential single-family property, zero lot.
ZV(R) 2025-0018) is to allow zero-foot (0’) augmenting to two-foot (2’) side setback instead of the required five-foot (5’) side setback along a segment of the eastern property line for an existing driveway in a single-family residential property, zero lot.
City Code References:
Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures
ZV(R)2025-0017)
Driveway, Zero Lot Line, Maximum Dimensions, 40% front lot coverage
ZV(R)2025-0018)
Driveway, Zero Lot Line, Setback, Side, 5 feet
VARIANCE DETERMINATION:
The Board of Adjustment shall not grant any single-family residential variances, permits, or make any decision, finding, and determination unless it first determines that:
Its decision and action taken is in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinances of the city and is not contrary to the public interest, health, or welfare, taking into account the character and use of adjoining buildings and those in the vicinity, the number of persons residing or working in the buildings, and traffic conditions in the vicinity.
In the granting of single-family residential variances, the Board shall follow Section 155.301(O) Variance:
1. Purpose: To allow for the provision of relief from certain development standards of this LDC for one or more of the following reasons:
a) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances are peculiar to the land or building and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinances would result in an unnecessary hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building; or
b) Any alleged hardship is not self-created by any person having an interest in the property nor is the result of a mere disregard for or in ignorance of the provisions of the zoning ordinances of the city; or
c) Granting the variance is not incompatible with public policy, will not adversely affect any adjacent property owners, and that the circumstances which cause the special conditions are peculiar to the subject property.