a.
City Board of Adjustment
- Meeting Date:
- 10/05/2016
- SUBJECT
- City Variance #1243- 429 Nelson Drive
- THROUGH:
- Wyeth Friday
- PRESENTED BY:
- Karen Husman
Information
REQUEST
Item #1: Variance #1243 – 429/431 Nelson Drive – Lot Area - A variance from 27-308 requiring a minimum lot area of 9,600 square feet for a two-family dwelling to allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet for an existing two-family dwelling in a Residential 7,000 (R-70) zone on Lot 10, Block 7, Rosedale Subdivision, 2nd Filing. The request is the result of a plan review error that occurred in 2008 approving the addition of a dwelling unit. Tax ID: A13616. Presented by Karen Husman, Planner I.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff is recommending conditional approval.
APPLICATION DATA
OWNERS: Dean C. Bargen
PURPOSE: To allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet for an existing two-family dwelling in a Residential 7,000
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 10, Block 7, Rosedale Subdivision, 2nd Filing
ADDRESS: 429 Nelson Drive
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
PROPOSED LAND USE: Residential Multi-Family
EXISTING ZONING: R-70
PURPOSE: To allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet for an existing two-family dwelling in a Residential 7,000
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 10, Block 7, Rosedale Subdivision, 2nd Filing
ADDRESS: 429 Nelson Drive
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
PROPOSED LAND USE: Residential Multi-Family
EXISTING ZONING: R-70
CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS
None
APPLICABLE ZONING HISTORY
Subject Property – The applicant applied for a building permit in 2008. The permit was mistakenly approved with one correction; the side setback must be 8 feet in order to accommodate the 2nd story setback requirement. The permit was approved as a garage with living space above. Staff did not recognize at the time there was no internal access between the two units, making it two separate dwelling units on a lot too small for two units under the code.
Surrounding Property – Records show there have been 3 variance requests in this subdivision. All three variances were for setbacks; one was approved and two were denied. There are several lots in adjacent neighborhoods that are nonconforming for lot area with either duplexes or multiple units on a property. According to Planning Division staff research, the Board has reviewed 21 similar variance requests in the area of this application and has approved 14 and denied 7.
Surrounding Property – Records show there have been 3 variance requests in this subdivision. All three variances were for setbacks; one was approved and two were denied. There are several lots in adjacent neighborhoods that are nonconforming for lot area with either duplexes or multiple units on a property. According to Planning Division staff research, the Board has reviewed 21 similar variance requests in the area of this application and has approved 14 and denied 7.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING
NORTH: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
SOUTH: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
EAST: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
WEST: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
Land Use: Residential Single Family
SOUTH: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
EAST: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
WEST: Zoning: R-70
Land Use: Residential Single Family
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a variance from 27-308 requiring a minimum lot area of 9,600 square feet for a two-family dwelling to allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet for an existing two-family dwelling in a Residential 7,000 (R-70) zone on Lot 10, Block 7, Rosedale Subdivision, 2nd Filing. The request is the result of a plan review error that occurred in 2008, approving the addition of a second dwelling unit.
The applicant applied for a building permit in 2008. The permit was mistakenly approved as a garage with living space above. Staff did not recognize at the time there was no internal access between the two units, making two separate dwelling units on a lot to small under the zoning regulations. The building permit application indicated living space above the garage, but not an additional dwelling unit. The plans submitted clearly show a kitchen, bath and bedrooms. However, staff misunderstood the information provided in the plans and thought a stairway shown in the living space area connected the living space above the garage to the rest of the home.
There are no special conditions or circumstances with the land that create a hardship. In this situation, the structure was built with the benefit of an approved permit. Staff mistakenly approved the garage with living space assuming it had an internal connection to the existing house and did not classify as a duplex under the zoning code definition. The permit was approved with one correction for the side setback amendment to 8 feet in order to accommodate the 2nd story setback requirement.
The Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the property in 2010. The Code Enforcement Supervisor/Zoning Coordinator sent the owner a letter informing him of the nonconformity and how it could be addressed through a variance process. The owner did not take any action at that time. In 2016, the owner began working on financing of the property and the issue of the non-comforming lot size was brought up again. The owner insisted on getting resolution to the matter over the counter in the Planning Division Office. Staff had to again inform him that he would need to apply for the variance, at no charge (as stated in the letter he received in 2010), and would still have to have the matter heard by the Board of Adjustment in order to have an approval or denial based on the determinations for granting a variance.
Planning staff has reviewed this application and is forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval for the variance, based on the determinations for granting a variance.
The applicant applied for a building permit in 2008. The permit was mistakenly approved as a garage with living space above. Staff did not recognize at the time there was no internal access between the two units, making two separate dwelling units on a lot to small under the zoning regulations. The building permit application indicated living space above the garage, but not an additional dwelling unit. The plans submitted clearly show a kitchen, bath and bedrooms. However, staff misunderstood the information provided in the plans and thought a stairway shown in the living space area connected the living space above the garage to the rest of the home.
There are no special conditions or circumstances with the land that create a hardship. In this situation, the structure was built with the benefit of an approved permit. Staff mistakenly approved the garage with living space assuming it had an internal connection to the existing house and did not classify as a duplex under the zoning code definition. The permit was approved with one correction for the side setback amendment to 8 feet in order to accommodate the 2nd story setback requirement.
The Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the property in 2010. The Code Enforcement Supervisor/Zoning Coordinator sent the owner a letter informing him of the nonconformity and how it could be addressed through a variance process. The owner did not take any action at that time. In 2016, the owner began working on financing of the property and the issue of the non-comforming lot size was brought up again. The owner insisted on getting resolution to the matter over the counter in the Planning Division Office. Staff had to again inform him that he would need to apply for the variance, at no charge (as stated in the letter he received in 2010), and would still have to have the matter heard by the Board of Adjustment in order to have an approval or denial based on the determinations for granting a variance.
Planning staff has reviewed this application and is forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval for the variance, based on the determinations for granting a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff is recommending conditional approval of City Variance #1243 based on the criteria for variances.