Title
ZV(R)2024-0022 - 0025
Vint Ceglarek, 700 SW 67 Terrace (District 1)
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:
Vint Ceglarek, owner, has submitted four residential zoning variance requests to legalize an existing driveway, patio and a shed on the property located at 700 SW 67 Terrace in the Pines Village neighborhood, which is zoned Residential Single-Family (R-1C).
On December 26, 2023, Code Compliance cited the property for work performed without permits (Case No. 231204671)
The petitioner is requesting the following:
• ZV(R)2024-0022: to allow 44% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 35% for existing driveways in a single-family residential, typical lot.
• ZV(R)2024-0023: to allow nine-foot, two-inch (9’ - 2”) driveway width instead of the minimum required ten-foot (10’) for existing driveway in a single-family residential, typical lot.
• ZV(R)2024-0024: to allow zero-foot (0’) side setback along a portion of the southern property line for existing driveway and patio in a single-family residential, typical lot.
Per staff review of the city’s archives, no building permits can be found for the worked detected via the code violation; nevertheless, staff did find and extracted a copy of the final survey required to complete Building Permit No. 22500124 for a home addition in the rear (see attached) The document date revealed a rectangular piece of asphalt located closer than five-foot (5’) to the southern property line had existed at location since at least 2005.
Planning and Economic Development Staff assisted the applicant to identify potential modifications to the existing nonpermitted work that could be made to meet the regulations of the City’s LDC.
The petitioner is also requesting:
• ZV(R)2024-0025: to allow one-hundred and twelve square-foot (112 SF) instead of the allowed one-hundred square-foot (100 SF) for an existing 8.2’ x 13.6’ storage shed in a single-family residential, typical lot.
The applicant has been made aware that Board consideration of residential variance requests does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permits.
The property is in the Pines Village neighborhood, there are no HOAs.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R)2024-0022) a 44% total front lot coverage instead of the required 35% total front lot coverage for an existing driveway on a typical lot.
ZV(R)2024-0023) a 9’-2” minimum width driveway instead of the required 10’ minimum width driveway for an existing driveway on a typical lot.
ZV(R)2024-0024) a 0’ side setback along a portion of the southern property line instead of the required 5’ for an existing driveway and patio.
ZV(R)2024-0025) 112 square feet instead of the 100 square feet maximum dimension for an existing shed.
Code References:
Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures
Type, Driveway, Typical Lot, Maximum Dimensions, 35% front lot coverage
Type, Driveway, Typical Lot, Additional Regulations, [1] 10 foot minimum width
Type, Shed, Maximum Dimensions, [1] 100 square 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.