|
Case Number: |
A-17-139 |
|
Applicant: |
Fernando Aguilar |
|
Owner: |
Richard H. Sanchez |
|
Council District: |
10 |
|
Location: |
9302 Perrin Beitel Road |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 8, Block 14, NCB 14009 |
|
Zoning: |
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
|
Case Manager: |
Oscar Aguilera, Planner |
Request
A request for a 26 foot variance from the 30 foot rear setback, as described in Section 35-310.01, Table 310-1 note 2, to allow a commercial building 4 feet from the rear property line
Executive Summary
The applicant is proposing a 3650 square foot addition in order to meet the demand for his existing dry-cleaning business. The applicant advises that the current building is too small for the amount of traffic the business receives. The property rears a development zoned “C-2” Commercial Distinct with an apartment complex on the property. The UDC states that a property which abuts a residential use or residential zoning district requires a 30 foot building line. Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to be within four feet of the rear property line so the new addition can maintain the existing building’s setback.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Dry Cleaner |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District, “C-3 AHOD” General Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Commercial Center |
|
South |
“C-3 AHOD” General Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Auto Repair Center |
|
East |
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Apartments |
|
West |
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District, “C-3 AHOD” General Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Dentist, Strip Mall, ROW |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the San Antonio International Vicinity Plan and currently designated Community Commercial in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of any neighborhood association.
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 setbacks to ensure that neighboring property rights are not violated. The site has had the dry cleaner business since 1978 and all adjacent businesses fronting Perrin Beitel Road have a common property line. The multi-family property placed parking stalls and private vehicle circulation along the shared property line, creating an approximately 50 foot buffer between the residential buildings and the proposed addition. Therefore, granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
Literal enforcement of the 30 foot rear setback would make the addition impossible. The owner will be unable to build the addition and will be unable to provide the required parking since the site is small.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
The spirit of the ordinance is the intent of the requirements rather than the strict letter of the law. The intent of the setbacks is to reduce conflicts between different land uses. However, in this case, the two land uses have coexisted together since the 1980’s. The existing parking and vehicular circulation for the multi-family lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed building addition, therefore reducing noise and other negative impacts between the land uses.
4. The variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the district in which the request for a variance is located.
The variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the “C-2 AHOD” Commercial 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.
The applicant is seeking a new addition to an existing dry cleaning building, originally constructed in 1978. The new project intends to better serve the community and improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The effect of the addition is mitigated by the fence separating the two properties, as well as the location of the multi-family parking and vehicular circulation.
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.
Literal enforcement of the 30 foot rear setback would make the addition impossible. The business has a need to grow and the owner has struggled to find a design that meets all development codes. This is not merely financial in nature, or is it the fault of the owner of the property.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
Denial of the variance request would result in the owner having to meet the setback standards.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested rear setback variance in A-17-139, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The four foot setback is adequate to allow maintenance without trespass; and
2. The adjacent properties have a common building line; and
3. The immediate adjacent use has located parking and traffic circulation for the apartment complex along the property line.