City Variance 1316 - 2226 Virginia Lane - A variance from 27-602 requiring a minimum 70-foot setback from the centerline of a minor arterial street to allow a 40 foot from center line setback; 27-308 requiring a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet to allow a minimum lot size of 8,968 square feet, and 27-308 requiring a maximum lot coverage of 30% to allow a maximum lot coverage of 41%, in a Residential -9600 (R-96) zone, on Lots 1A-3A of O’Malley Farms Subdivision, a .839 acre parcel of land. The purpose of the variance is to allow redevelopment of the property into four single family parcels. Presented by: Karen Husman, Planner I

Planning staff has reviewed this variance and is forwarding a recommendation of denial of the request to allow reduction in minimum lot size, increase lot coverage and reduce the arterial setback, based on the determinations detailed in the summary section of this memo. 

OWNERS: Big Sky Endeavors, LLC
AGENT: Craig Dalton, Performance Engineering
PURPOSE: Lot size of 8,968 sf, 41% lot coverage and 40 feet from the centerline of an arterial street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1A-3A of O’Malley Farms Subdivision
ADDRESS: 2226 Virginia Lane
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential 
PROPOSED LAND USE: Same 
EXISTING ZONING: R-96

Subdivision application pending.

SUBJECT PROPERTY	VARIANCE	DATE	FOR	APPROVED (Y/N)	ADDITIONAL DATA
None
SIMILAR PROPERTY
1065 O’Malley Dr.	30 & 37	2/25/75 & 4/29/75	Lot 7,200sf & 0 side sb	Y	Duplex
Reimers Park Sub	40	9/9/77	Art. SB 30’to 15’	Y
Grandview sub. Bk16, Lts6-8	200	1/30/97	Art SB to 35’		Existing structure
Grandview Sub, Blk3,	291	8/25/81	Art SB 38’6”	Y	Existing structures
2222 Virginia Lane	1118	4/12/12	Lot size	Y	For 2 sfr on 15,500 - one new
2222 Virginia Lane	1206	1/7/15	7’ rear sb & 34% LC	Y	Approved for 14’ rear sb and 32.5% LC to accommodate existing structures
501 Chancery Ln & 2220 Virginia Lane	1276	3/7/18	Art Sb 43’ and garage sb 13’	N	New structures
2202 Locust St	1075	9/1/10	Lot cov 32% & side sb	Y	Garage addition at existing setback
903 Princeton	1065	11/4/09	Lot 7,000 sf for 2 sfd	Y	For 2 existing structures

NORTH: Zoning: R-96
Land Use: Residential 
SOUTH: Zoning: R-96
Land Use: Residential
EAST: Zoning: R-96 
Land Use: Residential
WEST: Zoning: R-96
Land Use: Residential

The applicant is requesting a variance from a 70-foot setback from the centerline of a minor arterial street to allow a 40 foot from center line, to allow a minimum lot size of 8,968 square feet, and to allow a maximum lot coverage of 41%, in a Residential -9600 (R-96) zone.  The purpose of the variance is to allow redevelopment of the property into four single family parcels.

Although infill development is supported by the Growth Policy, this property is developable as it is and increasing the density in this case would not fit in with the existing neighborhood.  There is a development, Shadow Lawn to the north, where large homes are currently being built. The large homes in the area are also on larger lots as compared to this property or have similar sized lots with smaller homes. Some of the larger homes are on very large lots, some nearly one half acre.   There are also some smaller homes in the neighborhood on lots that were created and developed in the mid 1900’s (prior to zoning).  As with many older neighborhoods there is a good mix of home sizes, as well as, lot sizes.   Staff finds that the proposed variance request does not meet the criteria for a variance.  There is no hardship other than one created by the owner and developer.   The property can be developed in conformity to the current zoning regulations, there are three sufficient sized lots that can be developed as single family homes suited to the neighborhood.     

Staff did receive emails from two neighboring property owners with concerns about the variance and expressed an opinion of opposition. Their email letters of opposition to the variance are included as an attachment. 

DETERMINATIONS FOR VARIANCE #1316
The Board of Adjustment shall make the following determinations prior to granting a variance:
 
1.   That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot or something inherent in the land which causes the hardship, and which are not applicable to other lands in the same district;
There are no special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot or something inherent in the land which causes a hardship.  The hardship is stated by the applicant as the desire to design the existing 3 lots into four nonconforming lot sizes and build 4 single family homes. 
 
2.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other tracts in the same district;
The subject property is in a subdivision where most homes were built in the early to mid 1900’s.  Denying the variance would only deprive the applicant the ability to build 4 homes on smaller lots rather than 3 homes that meet zoning restrictions, the arterial setback required, lot size and lot coverage maximum set by the zoning code.
 
3.   That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other land in the same district;
The variance would allow the applicant to overbuild the lots according to the zoning regulations of the City of Billings a special privilege not generally enjoyed in this neighborhood.  There are large homes in the neighborhood that are on larger lots that do not exceed lot coverage.  There are smaller lots in surrounding subdivisions that were created prior to zoning regulations, creating smaller lots to build more new houses in this historic area would be out of character for the neighborhood. The variance would allow the applicant to build into the arterial setback according to the zoning regulations of the City of Billings a special privilege not generally enjoyed in this neighborhood. There have been variances granted in the surrounding neighborhoods for setbacks, lot coverage and lot size, all that were approved were for existing structures, the one denied was for new structures.
 
4.   That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter and with the Growth Policy;
Staff is recommending denial of the variance, granting the variance does conflict with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and the growth policy. 
 
5. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Chapter. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms upon which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter;
Staff is recommending denial for this variance no conditions have been prepared.
 
6.   The Board shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun or completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the time limit set shall void the variance; and
Staff is recommending denial of the variance so a time limit to complete the construction is not applicable. 
 
7.     Under no circumstances shall the Board grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this Chapter in the district involved. A variance shall not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other property in the district.The granting of this variance would not allow a use that is not allowed in the zoning district – single-family dwellings are allowed in the R-96 zone.

Planning staff has reviewed this variance and is forwarding a recommendation of denial of the request to allow reduction in minimum lot size, increase lot coverage and reduce the arterial setback, based on the determinations detailed in the summary section of this memo.