|
Case Number: |
A-16-157 |
|
Applicant: |
Chad McNamara |
|
Owner: |
Chad & Sarah McNamara |
|
Council District: |
9 |
|
Location: |
11102 Whispering Wind |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 19, Block 1, NCB 14131 |
|
Zoning: |
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
|
Case Manager: |
Margaret Pahl, AICP, Senior Planner |
Request
A request for a variance from the Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District provision, as described in UDC 35-335, which limits the aggregate driveway width to no more than 20% wider than the garage width.
Executive Summary
The subject property is part of the Whispering Oaks Subdivision, recorded in 1968. The lot includes nearly 10,000 square feet in lot area and the subdivision included a variety of covenants and restrictions that impacted the character of the neighborhood. The restrictions, executed by Lloyd Denton in 1968, also included clear vision requirements for all corner lots. The provisions prevented trees, shrubs, and fencing from being located within a 25 foot triangular area on corner lots. Trees, if planted had to be cleared between 2 feet and six feet above the street elevation.
The City of San Antonio does not enforce privately recorded deed restrictions as described above. The Unified Development Code does however have the exact same clear vision requirements. Fencing and other visual obstructions are prohibited in the 25 foot triangle near every intersection. According to the application materials, the owner is requesting approval of a circular driveway on the corner of the lot to provide additional off-street parking. Vehicles parked in this location will block the view of traffic.
In 2001, more than 51% of the property owners petitioned the City Council to initiate a Neighborhood Conservation District overlay. Community members participated in drafting the standards. Detailed provisions, regarding setbacks and minimum sizes, were drafted for each of the 750 parcels in the 300 acre area. Driveway width was among the standards, limited to no more than 20% larger than the garage width. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a circular driveway on the corner of the lot, not connected to a garage, to provide additional off-street parking for residents of the home.
The Development Services Traffic Engineer has recommended against the proposed location, but has suggested an alternative location which would not pose a traffic hazard. His option would also require the variance from the driveway limitations, but would result in vehicles parking adjacent to the house in the side yard. This option was not considered by the applicant because it is also the location of several trees. The applicant has prepared his preferred location for the installation of the driveway as proposed.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
Single-Family Residential |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
Single-Family Residential |
|
South |
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
Single-Family Residential |
|
East |
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
Single-Family Residential |
|
West |
“R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation District |
Single-Family Residential |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the North Sector Plan and currently designated Suburban Tier in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Whispering Oaks 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 the traffic regulations and guidelines which prohibit clear vision violations. The variance as requested would be contrary to public interest.
The Board of Adjustment could consider the suggested alternative location with parking set back from the corner, located adjacent to the house. A variance to install parking in this location is not 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 codes would not result in an unnecessary hardship, but instead protect the clear vision area.
Literal enforcement of the driveway restrictions in the proposed alternative location may result in an unnecessary hardship by preventing additional off-street parking.
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 code. In this case, the intent of protecting the clear vision triangle at intersections is to prevent traffic accidents. In addition and to further this goal, City traffic laws prevent on-street parking within 30 feet of a controlled intersection.
Though driveways are limited by the “NCD”, the applicant’s driveway is not very deep and on-street parking is restricted along their side yard. It could be within the spirit of the Code to allow the applicant to install additional parking in the side yard behind the front façade of their home.
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 variances will not authorize the operation of a use on the subject property other than those specifically permitted in the “R-6 NCD-4” Residential Single-Family Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Conservation 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 essential character of the district is established by the brick ramblers and the oak trees. The introduction of parking on the corner may impact this character.
The installation of parking in the side yard will involve the removal of several trees, but will be a preferred alternative to the proposed front yard location.
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 the result of an overlay district designed to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. While the applicant has submitted a list of other circular driveways, the prohibition has been in place since 2005.
The property is located at a controlled intersection, limiting on-street parking.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
Without the requested variance, the applicant would be required to park additional vehicles on the street.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variance in A-16-157 based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed location for off-street parking will block the clear vision area.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the alternate variance in A-16-157 based on the following findings of fact:
1. The Development Services Traffic Engineer recommended the alternative location;
2. The vehicle parking location will not be in the clear vision area of the intersection.