A.
City Board of Adjustment
- Meeting Date:
- 04/01/2015
- SUBJECT
- Variance #1208 - 4118 and 4120 Buchanan Avenue
- THROUGH:
- Candi Millar
- PRESENTED BY:
- David Green
Information
REQUEST
Variance #1208 – 4120 and 4120 ½ Buchanan, Lot Area: The applicant is requesting a variance from 27-308 requiring a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet to allow a minimum lot area of 6,250 square feet in a R-60 zone for 2 existing dwellings on Lot 40, Block 2, Fairview Subdivision. Tax ID: A06958. The owner intends to demolish and reconstruct one of the existing dwellings, David Schreder, owner. This application was continued from the March 4, 2015 Board of Adjustment meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending Conditional Approval.
APPLICATION DATA
| OWNER: David Schreder | |
| AGENT: None | |
| LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 39 and 40, Block 2, Fairview Subdivision | |
| ADDRESS: 4118 and 4120 Buchanan Avenue | |
| CURRENT ZONING: Residential 6000 | |
| EXISTING LAND USE: Residential | |
| PROPOSED USE: Residential | |
| SIZE OF PARCEL: 6,250 |
CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS
None
APPLICABLE ZONING HISTORY
Surrounding Property – Records show there have been 7 variance requests in the surrounding neighborhood. The variance requests have been for fence heights, setbacks, and multiple dwelling units on a small lot. Four of the seven variances were for 2 dwelling units on a lot too small to meet current zoning requirements.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING
| NORTH: | Zoning: R-60 Land Use: Residential |
| SOUTH: | Zoning: R-60 Land Use: Residential |
| EAST: | Zoning: R-60 Land Use: Residential |
| WEST: | Zoning: R-60 Land Use: Residential |
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a variance from 27-308 requiring a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet to allow a minimum lot area of 6,250 square feet in a R-60 zone for 2 existing dwellings on Lot 40, Block 2, Fairview Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to remove the building on the front of the lot and rebuild a new home. According to the county information available, the two existing homes were built in 1935 and 1940. County records also show the addresses as being 4118 and 4120 Buchanan Avenue, the front house being 4120.
This is an older neighborhood in Billings and there are several properties in the area that have more than one dwelling unit on them as well as multiple other structures in various states of repair. Some properties have obtained a variance in this neighborhood while others have not. The applicant states that he wishes to remove the front house and rebuild it at sometime in the future. The applicant makes mention of either a shop or a rental property. Because these lots are zoned residential, the applicant can rebuild a residence, or should he decide to not rebuild a residence, he could build a detached garage. The detached garage would be for the use of the residence and not something that could be rented out to someone, or used to run a business out of. It would be for personal use only. If a garage was constructed, it would have to meet all the zoning regulations as well as building, fire and engineering regulations.
Planning staff has reviewed this application and is forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval for the variance based on the determinations for review provided within this report. As with many neighborhoods of this age, multiple buildings were often built on the lot for additional housing for extended family members or as rental property. While out posting this property, staff observed several properties with multiple dwelling structures on them. Some of the lots may have more units on them than what current zoning allows for the lot size. This neighborhood is in need of some revitalization and a new dwelling unit would be a welcomed new addition to the area.
At the March 4, 2015 Board of Adjustment meeting this application was presented to the board. There were some surrounding property owners at the meeting who spoke in opposition to the application. Their main objection was the fact the a house on the back of the property would be remaining on the lot. It was their belief that the house was in serious disrepair, was an eyesore, dangerous and needed to be removed also. Their hope was the variance would be denied requiring the property owner to demolish the back house in order to build a new home on the lot.
The property owner, in rebuttal, said he has been working on the back small home, he stated he had replaced the windows, doors, wiring, carpet and repaired the walls on the inside. He planned to repair the roof and put new siding on the house so he can rent it out along with the new home on the front of the lot.
The public hearing was closed and the board discussed the variance request. A motion was made to approve the variance with an additional condition to the ones suggested by staff. The additional condition was for the applicant to have the roof and new siding installed on the remaining house within one year of the variance approval. Further discussion ensued and it was debated whether that type of condition was legal to impose. An alternate motion was proposed to delay the variance request for 30 days to be able to obtain a legal opinion from city legal staff on whether the proposed additional condition can be legally imposed.
Since this process began in February, the applicant has been working on the site and has now removed the front house. There are some updated pictures of the site attached to this staff report.
This is an older neighborhood in Billings and there are several properties in the area that have more than one dwelling unit on them as well as multiple other structures in various states of repair. Some properties have obtained a variance in this neighborhood while others have not. The applicant states that he wishes to remove the front house and rebuild it at sometime in the future. The applicant makes mention of either a shop or a rental property. Because these lots are zoned residential, the applicant can rebuild a residence, or should he decide to not rebuild a residence, he could build a detached garage. The detached garage would be for the use of the residence and not something that could be rented out to someone, or used to run a business out of. It would be for personal use only. If a garage was constructed, it would have to meet all the zoning regulations as well as building, fire and engineering regulations.
Planning staff has reviewed this application and is forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval for the variance based on the determinations for review provided within this report. As with many neighborhoods of this age, multiple buildings were often built on the lot for additional housing for extended family members or as rental property. While out posting this property, staff observed several properties with multiple dwelling structures on them. Some of the lots may have more units on them than what current zoning allows for the lot size. This neighborhood is in need of some revitalization and a new dwelling unit would be a welcomed new addition to the area.
At the March 4, 2015 Board of Adjustment meeting this application was presented to the board. There were some surrounding property owners at the meeting who spoke in opposition to the application. Their main objection was the fact the a house on the back of the property would be remaining on the lot. It was their belief that the house was in serious disrepair, was an eyesore, dangerous and needed to be removed also. Their hope was the variance would be denied requiring the property owner to demolish the back house in order to build a new home on the lot.
The property owner, in rebuttal, said he has been working on the back small home, he stated he had replaced the windows, doors, wiring, carpet and repaired the walls on the inside. He planned to repair the roof and put new siding on the house so he can rent it out along with the new home on the front of the lot.
The public hearing was closed and the board discussed the variance request. A motion was made to approve the variance with an additional condition to the ones suggested by staff. The additional condition was for the applicant to have the roof and new siding installed on the remaining house within one year of the variance approval. Further discussion ensued and it was debated whether that type of condition was legal to impose. An alternate motion was proposed to delay the variance request for 30 days to be able to obtain a legal opinion from city legal staff on whether the proposed additional condition can be legally imposed.
Since this process began in February, the applicant has been working on the site and has now removed the front house. There are some updated pictures of the site attached to this staff report.