|
Case Number: |
A-18-128 |
|
Applicant: |
Joe Farias |
|
Owner: |
Ana Menchaca |
|
Council District: |
1 |
|
Location: |
403 Cincinnati Avenue |
|
Legal Description: |
Lot 21, Block 9, NCB 2020 |
|
Zoning: |
“RM-4 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
|
Case Manager: |
Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner |
Request
A request for a 9’ variance from the 20’ garage setback, as described in Section 35-516(g), to allow a garage to be 11’ from the front property line.
Executive Summary
The subject property is located at 403 Cincinnati Avenue at the intersection with Saint Ann Street. The applicant is seeking to develop the subject property into 4 townhome units. The applicant wants to build the new structures reducing the garage setback requirement to 11’ from the property line. The applicant states that the house prior with a garage structure was located at 11’ from the front property line and this project intends to meet the front setback.
Subject Property Zoning/Land Use
|
Existing Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
“RM-4 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Vacant - Under Construction |
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
|
Orientation |
Existing Zoning District(s) |
Existing Use |
|
North |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
South |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Multi-Family Dwelling |
|
East |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
|
West |
“R-6 AHOD” Residential Mixed Airport Hazard Overlay District |
Single-Family Dwelling |
Comprehensive Plan Consistency/Neighborhood Association
The property is within the boundaries of the Midtown Neighborhood Plan and is currently designated “Low Density Residential” in the future land use component of the plan. The subject property is within the Uptown 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 garage setbacks to ensure that vehicles not obstruct the ROW. The requested reduction would allow for four townhomes to be developed on the lot with the same garage setback as the previous improvement. Staff finds the request 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 ordinance would require that the applicant adhere to the garage setback limitations, which would result in a loss of density on the subject property. The proposed four townhome use is allowed within the “RM-4” Residential Mixed base zoning district.
3. By granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.
Substantial justice will be done as the requested setback will still provide for a safe development pattern. The garages may be used for the required off-street parking.
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 AHOD” Residential Mixed 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 variance will not injure the appropriate use of adjacent properties or alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the garages are highly unlikely to affect the public right-of-way or the clear vision ordinance. Further, the proposed structures will conform to current designs of the existing 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 plight of the owner is due to the narrow lot size. The applicant is orienting the structure to face south, with garage access entering from the east.
Alternative to Applicant’s Request
Denial of the variance request would result in the owner having to meet the required 20 foot garage setback.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances in A-18-128, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The requested setback maintains the conditions of the original dwelling, and;
2. The variance is unlikely to detract from the character of the district, and;
3. The variance is unlikely to have a negative impact on the adjacent properties.