|
Case Number: |
A-16-125 |
|
Applicant: |
Andrew Jacoby |
|
Owner: |
David Komet |
|
Council District: |
5 |
|
Location: |
727 South Trinity Street |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot S 35.5 FT of 11 and 12, Block C, NCB 6017 |
|
Zoning: |
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
|
Case Manager: |
Shepard Beamon, Planner |
Request
A request for 1) a 15 foot variance from the 20 foot zoning rear setback, per Section 35-310, to allow a home to be five feet from the rear property line and 2) a variance from the "R-4" Residential Single-Family zoning maximum of two and a half story construction, per Section 35-310, to allow three habitable levels.
Executive Summary
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the South Trinity Street and El Paso Street intersection. The applicant is seeking variances to reduce the rear setback as well as permit three habitable levels. The Unified Development Code allows up to two and a half habitable levels, and a maximum of 35 feet in height. The proposed design meets the 35 foot height limitation, but requires a variance to allow three full stories. Lastly, the subject property is a reverse corner lot which presents additional development challenges.
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
South |
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling, One Operator Beauty/Barber Shop |
|
East |
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
West |
“R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Vacant |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the Guadalupe/Westside Neighborhood Plan and designated as Low Density Residential Land Use. The subject property is located within the boundaries of Avenida Guadalupe Neighborhood Association. As such, they were notified and asked to comment.
Criteria for Review
According to Section 35-482(e) of the UDC, in order for a variance to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following:
1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest.
The public interest is defined as the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. In this case, the public interest is represented by setback limitations to protect property owners and eliminate risks for health and safety hazards for surrounding properties, as well as height limitations to encourage compatible development within our communities.
The first variance seeks to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The lot is only 2,304 square feet in area; development on a lot this small is challenging. The requested five foot setback meets fire code. Many of the lots in this neighborhood have been improperly subdivided, do not meet minimum lot size, and several on the same block also do not meet the required 20 foot rear setback. Further, the property is a reverse corner lot, creating two front yard setbacks - the applicant’s site plan meets each of these. Staff finds that the request to reduce the rear setback is not contrary to the public interest.
The second variance request seeks to allow three habitable levels, rather than the maximum two and a half stories set forth in the code. Despite being three stories tall, the applicant’s design meets the 35 foot maximum height limitation. Additionally, the properties to the north and west of the subject property are both two story structures. The height of the adjacent structures mitigates the impact of the proposed structure. Staff finds that the request to build three habitable levels is not contrary to the public interest.
2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
The special condition present in this case is the size of the lot. The lot, currently described as only a portion of two platted lots, is only 2,304 square feet in area. Developing a home on the lot is challenging. The applicant has designed a site plan that meets both front setbacks and the side setback, but needs relief from the 20 foot rear. Further, because the lot is so small, the applicant has designed a home that extends upwards, rather that outwards. A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result is a barely developable lot.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
The spirit of the ordinance seeks to promote compatible, safe development. The proposed site plan meets fire standards. Additionally, the height of the structure is buffered by the presence of the abutting properties - both of which are two stories tall.
4. The variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance is sought is located.
The requested variance will not authorize the operation of a use on the subject property other than those specifically permitted in the “R-4 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District.
5. Such variance will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.
Because abutting properties are two story as well, it is unlikely that the presence of a three story structure will detract from the essential character of the district, especially considering that the proposed design meets the maximum 35 foot height. Also, several other properties on the same block fail to meet the required 20 foot rear setback. As such, staff finds that the request will not detract from the essential character of the district.
6. The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.
The unique circumstance present in this case is the size of the lot. This is not the fault of the owner, nor is this problem merely financial in nature.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
The applicant would need to meet the required rear setback and adhere to the two and a half story height limitation.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of A-16-125 based on the following findings of fact:
|
1. |
The small lot creates obstacles to development; |
|
2. |
The requested design is buffered by the close proximity of other tall structures. |