|
Case Number: |
A-15-161 |
|
Applicant: |
Yolanda Rodriguez |
|
Owner: |
Yolanda Rodriguez |
|
Council District: |
3 |
|
Location: |
2011 Probandt Street |
|
Legal Description: |
Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, NCB 3381 |
|
Zoning: |
“NC AHOD” Neighborhood Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
|
Case Manager: |
Margaret Pahl, AICP Senior Planner |
Request
A request for 1) a 20 foot variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback as described in Table 35-310-1; 2) a five foot variance from the minimum 15 foot side and rear bufferyard as described in Table 35-510; 3) a variance from the 15 foot maximum front setback; 4) a five foot variance from the minimum ten foot side yard setback, both found in Table 35-310-1; and 5) a variance from the requirement that parking be located behind the principal structure as described in 35-310.08.
Executive Summary
The subject property is located at 2011 Probandt Street, northwest of its intersection with Thelka Street. The current owner bought the property in 2004, per Bexar County records and rezoned the property to its current “NC” Neighborhood Commercial base zoning district from the previous “R-6” Residential Single-Family zoning (Zoning Case Number Z2010055). The applicant is seeking a total of five variances; the front setback, side setback, bufferyards on the north and west property lines, and a variance from the “NC” design requirements that parking be located behind the principal structure.
Section 35-310.08 “NC” Neighborhood Commercial states the following as a Statement of Purpose for the district:
“The district provides small areas for offices, professional services, service and shop front retail uses, all designed in scale with surrounding residential uses. The district regulations are designed to protect and encourage the transitional character of the districts by permitting a limited group of uses of a commercial nature and to protect the abutting and surrounding residential areas by requiring certain minimum yard and area standards to be met which are comparable to those called for in the residential districts.”
Due to their typical proximity to residential uses, neighborhood commercially zoned properties are required to comply with additional design requirements to reduce their impact on their residential neighbors. One of these design guidelines requires that parking for the commercial operations be located behind the structure, screened from view of the public ROW. Impervious cover is also regulated in the “NC” district, with a limitation of no more than 50% of the front yard covered with impervious pavement. These and other design elements create conditions in which residential and commercial uses can compliment, rather than detract from, one another. Building size is limited, no drive-through service is allowed, signage is limited, and storefront detailing is required.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“NC AHOD” Neighborhood Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Vacant, proposed strip-center |
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 |
“C-2 AHOD” Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Car Wash |
|
East |
“R-5 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 located within the boundaries of the South Central Neighborhood Plan and is designated as Neighborhood 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, these criteria are represented by minimum setback and bufferyard requirements to protect residential uses from commercial operations. The public interest is further represented by design guidelines which soften the built environment and make commercial operations near residential districts more compatible.
The applicant is seeking to reduce the rear (west) setback on the property from the required 30 feet to ten feet. The massing effect of a commercial structure within ten feet of a shared property line would negatively impact the adjacent residential property owner. Staff finds that this request is contrary to the public interest as the setbacks established by the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial district are designed to protect adjacent residences.
Further, the applicant seeks to reduce the side (north) setback from ten feet to five feet. The applicant states that justification for this reduction stems from their current ownership of the property to the north. Ownership, however, is not permanent; one day either property will belong to different owners. Staff finds that reducing the setback along the north property line from ten feet to five feet is also contrary to the public interest.
The applicant seeks to reduce the rear (west) bufferyard from the 15 foot required to ten feet. The bufferyard depth is established to provide protections for adjacent property owners; reducing the bufferyard by a third provides inadequate protections for the adjacent home owner. Further, staff finds that the applicant’s proposed ten foot rear setback, coupled with the proposed ten foot bufferyard is unachievable as the bufferyard would back up to the structure itself, leaving no room for maintenance of either the bufferyard or rear wall of the structure. Staff finds that this request is contrary to the public interest.
The applicant wants to eliminate the side (north) bufferyard, too, citing, again, that they are the owner of the property to the north. Staff finds that the outright elimination of the bufferyard would detract from the purpose of the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial district’s statement of purpose, as detailed in Section 35-310.08. Staff recommends that the applicant act upon Section 35-510(4)(B), which permits a reduction of up to one half of the bufferyard depth to be waived in the event that the property owners of two adjoining lots both agree to eliminate half the bufferyard. As the applicant owns both lots, they have permission to reduce the required 15 foot bufferyard to a seven and a half foot bufferyard. Staff finds the applicant’s request to eliminate the bufferyard is contrary to the public interest.
The applicant is seeking a variance from the 15 foot maximum front setback. The “NC” district is intended to create store-front shopping conditions by encouraging more pedestrian friendly, walkable layouts. Staff finds that allowing the building to be located further than 15 feet from the front property line would detract from the purpose of this district.
Lastly, the applicant is seeking permission to vary from the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial district’s design requirement that parking be located behind the structure. The intent of the “NC” district is to minimize the impacts of light commercial operations within close proximity to residential uses. Placing parking, generally associated with commercial districts, at the forefront of a project detracts from the stated goal of the district. Further, if the building were located nearer the street with a more traditional street-front layout, as required by the district, the applicant would be permitted to place parking within the rear and side setbacks - essentially solving the majority of the applicant’s hardships. Staff finds that the request to permit parking in front of the structure is contrary to the public interest.
2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.
Staff is unable to determine a special condition present to warrant the granting of any of the requested variances. The property in question, even when designed to meet the current setback and bufferyard requirements, is an ideal candidate for the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The required parking could be located within the setbacks and the building located to create a store-front shopping experience, indicative of the “NC” district. The layout would permit the property owners to develop and would contribute to a pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood location. Staff finds that, as developing to meet the design requirements does not result in any loss, that denial of the requested variance would not result in unnecessary hardship.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
Granting the five requested variances would not result in substantial justice. If the setbacks were reduced, adjacent property owners, current or future, would be forced to live in close proximity to an adjacent commercial property. The same property owners would be less protected by reduced or eliminated bufferyards, and the site layout of the lot would detract from the residential nature of 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 variance will not authorize the operation of a use on the subject property other than those specifically permitted in the “NC AHOD” Neighborhood 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 requested setback variances are likely to substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent, conforming property. The home to the west would be within only 20 feet of a commercial structure, 30 feet less than those protections created by the Unified Development Code. The home to the north of the property is located only five feet from the shared property line. Granting this setback variance request would create only a ten foot distance from commercial to residential structure.
In both cases, each residential property owner, current of future, would be negatively affected by the reduced setbacks, intended solely to protect those very persons.
Parking located in the front of the structure would noticeably detract from the essential character of the district in which it is located and would undermine the very intent of the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial district. In addition, the parking would likely violate the impervious pavement limitation. The requested variances would injure adjacent property owners and would detract from the essential character of the community in which it is located.
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.
Staff is unable to determine any unique circumstances present to warrant the granting of the variances. Developing to meet the design requirements would benefit the applicant as there would be no reduction is setbacks or bufferyard. The only reason that the applicant is seeking to reduce these setbacks is to allow the building to be located nearer the rear property line. Placing the building at the front eliminates these variances requests, allows for property bufferyards, and creates conditions in harmony with the residential nature of the community.
In addition, since the applicant requested the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District in 2010, any hardship would be self-induced.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
The applicant must abide by all lot layout requirements, including bufferyards, setbacks, and parking locations.
As the applicant owns both the subject property and the property to the north, they may opt to reduce 50% of the required bufferyard, mandating only a seven and a half foot bufferyard, rather than a 15 foot bufferyard.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends DENIAL of all variance requests in A-15-161 based on the following findings of fact:
|
1. |
There are no special conditions present to warrant the granting of the variances and the applicant recently requested this zoning district, making the proposed hardship self-induced; |
|
2. |
The applicant has a more developable lot by complying with the requirements; |
|
3. |
The proposed variances would noticeably detract from both the essential character of the district as well as the purpose of the “NC” Neighborhood Commercial base zoning district. |