|
Case Number: |
A-17-144 |
|
Applicant: |
Steven Belt |
|
Owner: |
Steven Belt |
|
Council District: |
10 |
|
Location: |
14214 Prestwood Street |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 3, Block 4, NCB 16286 |
|
Zoning: |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
|
Case Manager: |
Shepard Beamon, Senior Planner |
Request
A request for 1) a nine and a half foot variance from the platted ten foot side setback, as described in UDC Section 35-516(o) and 2) a three foot variance from the five rear setback, as described in Section 35-510.01, to allow a carport six inches from the side property line and two feet from the rear property line.
Executive Summary
The subject property is located within the Woodstone North Subdivision. The corner lot includes a 10 foot platted side setback. The owner constructed a carport less than one foot away from the side property line and two feet from the rear property line. The carport was constructed to protect the owner’s recreational vehicle and other personal property. The applicant states the previous owner poured the existing driveway and built the existing fence within one foot of the property line, and due to this, there was no other feasible way to locate the carport elsewhere on the lot.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Home |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Home |
|
South |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Home |
|
East |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Home |
|
West |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Home |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the North Sector Plan and currently designated as Suburban Tier in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a registered 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 minimum setbacks. The all-metal carport is two feet from the rear property line, providing room for maintenance and therefore is not contrary to the public interest.
The nine and a half foot variance from the side setback is contrary to the public interest as the carport is designed to drain water onto the public right-of-way, not on the subject property.
2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
Literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in a carport that may not be of adequate length to cover the full length of the recreational vehicle.
As the standard recreational vehicle is eight feet six inches in width, and the current carport measures at least 18 feet in width, the carport could be reduced to allow a five foot side setback and still be an appropriate width to allow a recreational vehicle.
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, rather than the strict letter of the law. In this case, the intent of the accessory structure setback is to avoid any negative impact on the adjacent property. As there is room for maintenance and water runoff is directed away from the neighboring property, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed.
The wider platted side setback was likely intended to avoid any negative impact on the public right-of way and to prevent the appearance of a cluttered streetscape. The current location of the carport does not achieve this goal. Locating the carport a minimum of five feet from the side property line would achieve the spirit of the ordinance.
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 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 carport does not injure the adjacent properties as there is room for maintenance, it is made of metal, reducing the risk of fire spread, and there is no water runoff onto the adjacent property.
The reduction of the side setback contradicts with the character of the neighborhood and can be overwhelming in appearance. Locating the structure further inward from the side property line reduces some visibility of the structure.
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 existing on the property is the existing driveway which is not of adequate length to park a recreational vehicle. The owner instead must park the vehicle in the rear yard to avoid having any portion of the vehicle in the public right-of-way. The rear yard is not large enough to park the recreational vehicle and meet the five foot rear setback.
There is adequate width to reduce the carport and allow a five side setback. There is no unique circumstance existing on the property that warrants the side setback reduction more than five feet.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
The owner would remove the structure as it would not sufficiently cover a recreational vehicle if it were to meet the required setbacks.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of a three foot variance from the five foot rear setback, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The request does not produce water runoff onto the adjacent residential property; and
2. The structure does not increase the risk of fire spread; and
3. There is room for maintenance without trespass.
Staff recommends DENIAL of a 9.5 variance from the 10 foot platted side setback, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The request does produce water runoff on the public right-of-way; and
2. The structure could be built to include a larger side setback and still provide an adequate width for parking.