|
Case Number: |
A-16-135 |
|
Applicant: |
Arturo Lara, Jr. |
|
Owner: |
Arturo Lara, Jr |
|
Council District: |
4 |
|
Location: |
5923 Stoney Creek |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 27, Block 19, NCB 16008 |
|
Zoning: |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overly District |
|
Case Manager: |
Shepard Beamon, Planner |
Request
A request for an 13 foot variance from the platted 20 foot front setback, as described in Section 35-516(o), to allow a carport to be seven (7) feet from the front property line.
Executive Summary
The applicant currently resides in the Lackland City Subdivision, which was recorded September 29, 1972. The property owner recently began construction of a carport without permits and was cited by code. The property owner has stopped construction in order to apply for a variance. This subdivision has a twenty (20) foot platted front setback. The applicant converted the existing garage into living space to care for his elderly mother. The applicant wishes to continue the construction of the carport to provide the occupant’s car protection from inclement weather. Furthermore, carports are a common feature within the subdivision.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“R-6 AHOD ” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“R-6 AHOD ” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
South |
“R-6 AHOD ” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
East |
“R-6 AHOD ” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
West |
“R-6 AHOD ” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of a United Southwest Community Plan and is designated Low-Density Residential in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is located within the Southwest Community Association. As such, the neighborhood association was notified and asked to comment.
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 front setback limitations to protect property owners and to contribute to a sense of community. Staff finds that the request for a carport is not contrary to the public interest as the carport does not encroach into the side setback and does not interfere with Clear Vision. Additionally, many property owners in this community benefit from carports.
2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
Due to the fact that several other residents are able to enjoy carports, the literal enforcement of the ordinance will not allow the owner to have the same privileges.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
Granting the requested variance will result in substantial justice as the proposed design will only encroach three feet into the UDC required setback and would uphold the spirit of the ordinance. Additionally, the carport is not likely to cause an increase in fire spread to adjacent properties.
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-6 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.
The proposed carport will not alter the essential character of the district as there are many other carports within the neighborhood, some of which are built up to the front property line. Furthermore, the carport does not encroach into the side setback, and will does increase fire hazard or water runoff on the adjacent property. Also, the carport can be maintained without trespassing.
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 plight of the owner is due to the 20 foot platted front setback, which would not allow any room for a carport. This hardship was not caused by the owner and is not merely financial in nature.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
The applicant could follow the guidelines for front setbacks, as described in 35-516(o).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of variance request in A-16-135 based on the following findings of fact:
|
|
|
1. |
The home is built at the 20 foot front setback, which limits development in the front of the property; |
|
2. |
The carport, as proposed, will only encroach three feet into the UDC required 10 foot setback and will cause no harm to adjacent properties; |
|
3. |
There are several other similar carports within the subdivision, some of which are built up to the front property line. |