|
Case Number: |
A-16-126 |
|
Applicant: |
David Monroe |
|
Owner: |
Unobtainium Property Solutions, LLC |
|
Council District: |
8 |
|
Location: |
23011 IH 10 West |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 127, Block 1, NCB 18338 |
|
Zoning: |
“C-3 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” General Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District and “C-2 CD GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District with Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales (Full Service) |
|
Case Manager: |
Logan Sparrow, Senior Planner |
Request
A request for 1) a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot required rear setback, as described in Section 35-310.01, to allow for a commercial development with a 15 foot rear setback and variances from the “GC-1” Hill Country Gateway Corridor for the following: 2) a variance to eliminate the four foot minimum height requirement for parking area screening within the front 90 feet of the property and 3) a variance to eliminate the required 25 foot front bufferyard and 4) a variance from the ten foot rear bufferyard and 5) a variance from the requirement that no more than 70 percent of the building may be glass.
Executive Summary
The subject property is located at 23011 IH 10 West, approximately 154 feet north of Steeple Park Drive. The applicant is seeking a total of five variances from the “GC-1” Hill Country Gateway Corridor District design requirements. The corridor district was established following the adoption of Ordinance 97656, dated May 22, 2003. The subject property was originally developed in 2002 and does not meet several of the design requirements established after the initial construction. The applicant is seeking variances to bring the property into compliance with the current standards.
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“C-3 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” General Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District and “C-2 CD GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District with Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales (Full Service) |
Proposed Motor Vehicle Sales |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“C-2 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District |
Vacant Commercial |
|
South |
“R-6 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Residential Single-Family Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District |
HOA Owned Open Space |
|
East |
UZROW |
IH 10 West |
|
West |
“R-6 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Residential Single-Family Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the North Sector Plan and designated as Suburban Tier in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is not located within 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 design standards to preserve the character of the Hill Country Gateway corridor. The design standards were established a year after the construction of the building. The applicant is seeking a variance to maintain the existing 15 foot rear setback on the south end of the building; the north end of the building is set back further than the required 30 feet. Staff finds that allowing the building to remain in the current location is not contrary to the public interest.
The second variance seeks to eliminate the required four foot minimum height requirement for parking area screening. This requirement applies to the front 90 feet of the property. The property is, at its widest point, 179 feet wide, meaning that any parking in the front half of the property would need to be screened at a four foot height. When the building was constructed in 2002 it included parking located along the front property line. Allowing the applicant to retain its existing parking layout without additional screening is not contrary to the public interest.
The third variance seeks to eliminate the 25 foot front bufferyard, located along the IH 10 frontage road. Similarly, the original construction, which pre-dates the Hill Country Gateway Corridor, did not factor in such a deep bufferyard. Currently, the front wall of the property is located about 50 feet from the front property line. Forcing the applicant to install a 25 foot bufferyard would eliminate half the depth of the front, currently used for parking. Further, the bufferyard depth would eliminate several parking spaces, placing the development out of compliance with the parking standards set for in Section 35-526 of the San Antonio Unified Development Code. Staff finds that eliminating the bufferyard and allowing the applicant to retain the current layout of the property is not contrary to the public interest.
The fourth variance seeks to eliminate a rear setback. As discussed in the first variance request, a portion of the building is located as near as 15 feet from the rear property line. Should the applicant install the ten foot rear bufferyard, that portion of the property cannot be traversed by vehicular traffic - cutting off access to service bays for vehicles. Also, to the west of the property is currently two large lots with thick vegetation. Portions of these lots currently serve as a buffer between the two properties. Staff finds that eliminating the rear bufferyard requirement is not contrary to the public interest.
The last variance seeks to allow the building to maintain its current building materials. A large portion of the building is a curved glass wall. The “GC-1” Hill Country Gateway Corridor includes a provision limiting to 70 percent the portion of a building allowed to be covered with glass. Staff finds that allowing the applicant to keep the glass design, which was built prior to the adoption of the design requirements, 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 is that the site was developed before the Hill Country Gateway Corridor ordinance was adopted. Asking that the property owner retroactively apply design requirements after the site was developed results in an unnecessary hardship.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
Granting the requested variances would result in substantial justice because it will bring the property into compliance with the current zoning requirements. The spirit of the Ordinance seeks to ensure compatible development along the gateway corridor. It is unlikely that the building, which has stood for 14 years without incident, could be found to detract from the community.
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 “C-3 GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” General Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District and “C-2 CD GC-1 MSAO-1 MLOD” Commercial Hill Country Gateway Corridor Overlay Military Sound Attenuation Overlay Military Lighting Overlay District with Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales (Full Service).
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.
Adjacent properties are unlikely to be negatively affected by the requested changes in that the request seeks to maintain the property as-is. Adjacent properties have existed since the site was developed in 2002 without incident.
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 of the property is the result of an ordinance being adopted after the initial development of the property. Retroactively applying design requirements present several challenges and meeting them can present an unnecessary hardship.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
The applicant would have to comply with the design standards.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of A-16-126 based on the following findings of fact:
|
1. |
The site was developed prior to the adoption of the “GC-1” corridor. |
|
2. |
Having the applicant retroactively apply design standards present an unnecessary hardship. |