TOWN STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
title
Hold a public hearing, discuss, consider and act on request for a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback allowed for a principal building under the Unified Development Code, located at 1706 Placid Oaks Lane, legally described as Lot 10, Block 7, The Estates of Quail Hollow, Town of Westlake, Tarrant County, Texas, zoned as R-1, estate residential district (ZBA Case No. 2025-01)
body
STAFF: Jason Alexander, AICP, CEcD, Deputy Town Manager
BACKGROUND:
The Unified Development Code (the “UDC”) was adopted --- among other purposes --- “[t]o protect, promote, improve and provide for the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the town” and “[t]o ensure the safe, orderly and efficient development and expansion of the town in accordance with and pursuant to its Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, and Open Space Plan”. Accordingly, the UDC establishes development standards for residential, non-residential, and government zoning districts. These development standards regulate the use of land, parking, building setbacks, building height, et cetera.
This is a request for a variance --- to reduce the minimum setbacks for the R-1, estate residential district, as set forth in Sec. 102-124 of the UDC entitled “District development standards”. The development standards require minimum side setbacks for the R-1, estate residential district be 20 feet from the lot line. As presented, the property owner is requesting a reduction from the minimum side setback of 20 feet to 18 feet. This request is made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment because “the existing slope of the lot caused the necessary shift in the house”.
As this property is zoned R-1, estate residential district, and not PD, planned development district, a reduction in the minimum setbacks may not be reviewed and considered by the Town Planner; it requires action from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
In making a determination on the variance request, the Zoning Board of Adjustment must find --- as set forth in Sec. 26-68 (d)(1)-(11) of the UDC:
(1) Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent property in the same district;
(2) Such variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the public;
(3) Such variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
(4) Such 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, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section;
(5) Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the UDC;
(6) Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which is located the property for which the variance is sought;
(7) Such variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of the zoning regulations established for the district in which the property is located;
(8) Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the UDC would result in unnecessary hardship;
(9) The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance or exception is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, including, but not limited to, the area, shape or slope, 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;
(10) The variance or exception is not a self-created hardship; and
(11) The variance is clearly identified as a variance to the town’s standards on the concept plan, site plan or text of chapter 102.
DISCUSSION:
The determination made by the Board of Zoning Adjustment must be consistent with the findings --- the parameters --- established by Sec. 26-68 (d)(1)-(11) of the UDC.
It should be noted that the Architectural Review Board for Quail Hollow recommends approval of the variance request --- and stated in Exhibit “A” that “[t]he Quail Hollow Architectural Review Board has reviewed the case for this residence and is aware that plans currently show the house to be located approximately 2’-0” into the side yard” and that “it is the opinion of the [Architectural Review Board] that granting a variance for this issue does not alter the character of the neighborhood.”
It should be noted that Exhibit “C”, entitled “1706 Placid Oaks Lane Survey”, depicts that the building elevation encroaches up to 2’4” into the side setbacks.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that if the variance request is approved, that such request be approved to allow for an encroachment into the side setback of up to 2’4” (i.e., 2 feet and 4 inches).
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION / OPTIONS:
1. Motion to approve;
2. Motion to approve with additional conditions (please state additional conditions in motion);
3. Motion to deny; OR
4. Motion to table (must table to a specific date).
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Application
2. Exhibit “A” - Quail Hollow Architectural Review Board Consent
3. Exhibit “B.1.” - Property Owner Variance Request (Justification)
4. Exhibit “B.2.” - Property Owner Variance Request (Justification)
5. Exhibit “C“ - 1706 Placid Oaks Lane Survey