Skip to main content
city of San Antonio


Some of our meetings have moved. View additional meetings.

File #: 18-4119   
Type: Zoning Case
In control: Board of Adjustment
On agenda: 7/2/2018
Posting Language: A-18-088: A request by Mary Carrasco for 1) a 7’5” variance from the 10’ front setback to allow a carport to be 2’7” from the front property line, located at 4223 Katrina Lane. Staff recommends Denial. (Council District 3)
Attachments: 1. A-18-088 Attachments
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Case Number:

A-18-088

Applicant:

Mary Carrasco

Owner:

Mary Carrasco

Council District:

3

Location:

4223 Katrina Lane

Legal Description:

Lot 31, Block 7, NCB 17450

Zoning:

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Case Manager:

Dominic Silva, Planner

Request

A request for a 7’5” variance from the 10’ front setback, as described in Section 35-310.01, to allow a carport to be 2’7” from the front property line.

Executive Summary

The subject property is located at 4223 Katrina Lane, approximately 95’ west of Muriel Avenue. Code Enforcement initiated this case on April 18th, 2018 due to setback violations.

The applicant is requesting to keep a carport built without permits within the front setback. The lot was designed as a zero lot line property, thus no side setback variances are required along the east property line. The general character of the neighborhood consists of single-family residences, attached two car garages, and no carports. Because of this, the carport is noticeably out of character within the community. Additionally, the slope of the carport directs storm water drainage towards the east of the property, that being the zero lot line, and onto adjacent property.

Subject Property Zoning/Land Use

 

Existing Zoning

Existing Use

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Single-Family Dwelling

 

Surrounding Zoning/Land Use

 

Orientation

Existing Zoning District(s)

Existing Use

North

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Single-Family Dwelling

South

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Single-Family Dwelling

East

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Single-Family Dwelling

West

“RM-4” Residential Mixed District

Single-Family Dwelling

 

Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association

The property is not located within the boundaries of any plan. The subject property is within the Pecan Valley 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 variance is contrary to the public interest. While the carport is designed such that rainwater runoff is not a concern for the applicant’s property, the structure fails to adequately mitigate storm water runoff through installation of proper controls. Staff finds that the carport, as designed, could present a negative impact on the adjacent property.

2.                     Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

 

Staff cannot find any special conditions that, if enforced literally, would result in any unnecessary hardship. The applicant can make use of the two car garage for covered access to the principal structure, and no special condition is present to warrant a carport of this size. If a permit was sought, staff could have advised on other approaches to achieve a similar result.

 

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. The intent of the setback limitation is to prevent fire spread, allow adequate space for maintenance, and encourage proper storm water drainage. With no storm water controls present, a large garage available for covered access, and space available to move the posts 10’ from the front property line with 5’ of overhang, staff cannot support the requested variance when alternative options are available that doesn’t require Board approval.

 

4.                     The variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the district in which the request for a variance is located.

 

The variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the “RM-4” Residential Mixed 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 is noticeably out of character within this district. There are no other carports of similar design or placement within the immediate vicinity. Staff finds the carport detracts from the essential character of the district. Staff notes that, while a carport can be permitted within the district, the location of the structure and availability of a two car garage for safe access to the primary structure does not warrant a variance, rather, the applicant can modify the carport to meet requirements without Board approval.

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 could not find any unique circumstances that warrant the granting of the requested variance. Had the applicant applied for a permit, staff could have assisted with an alternative design that benefits the applicant and the community. Although staff recommends denial, there are other options available to the applicant that doesn’t require a variance: the posts of the carport can be located 10’ from the front property line with 5’ of overhang allowed by code.

Alternative to Applicant’s Request

Denial of the variance request would result in the owner having to meet the required front setback and adhere to Section 35-310.01.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends DENIAL of A-18-088, based on the following findings of fact:

1.                     The carport built is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood as there is no other carports within the immediate area staff inspected, and;

2.                     With a large garage present, there are no unique circumstances present that warrant the request, and;

3.                     The carport posts can be relocated 10’ from the front property line with 5’ of overhang.