Variance 1314 - High Sierra Sub, 16th Filing - Lot Coverage – A variance from 27-308 requiring a maximum lot coverage of 40% to allow a maximum lot coverage of 50% in a proposed Residential-5000 (R-50) zone, on Block 31, Lots 17-25, High Sierra Sub., 16^th Filing (proposed), a 2.4 acre parcel of land. The purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of duplex units on the land. Presented by Nicole Cromwell, Zoning Coordinator

Planning staff recommends conditional approval of the variance.

OWNER: Gary Oakland, High Sierra II Inc.
AGENT: Sanderson Stewart, Gary Owen, P.E.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 17-25, Block 31 of proposed High Sierra Sub., 16th Filing
ADDRESS: North side of Mission Oaks Dr west of Morocco Dr and east of Matador Dr
CURRENT ZONING: Residential 7,000-Restricted (R-70-R) - proposed Residential 5,000 (R-50)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Duplex townhomes
SIZE OF PARCEL: 2.4 acres (104,544 square feet)

Zone Change 979 - A request to rezone from R-70-R to R-50. Zoning Commission hearing July 7, 2020.

A comprehensive zoning history as been compiled and is included below. Many of these predevelopment variance requests are located in other parts of the City rather than the Heights. They are relevant and should be considered since they represent predevelopment requests. More details are included Summary portion of this report.

SUBJECT PROPERTY	VARIANCE #	DATE	FOR	APPROVED (Y/N)	ADDITIONAL DATA
High Sierra Sub	Zone Change 822	11/13/2007	A-1 & R-96 to R-70-R	Y	400 acre Dover Ranch
SURROUNDING PROPERTY	VARIANCE #	DATE	FOR	APPROVED (Y/N)	ADDITIONAL DATA
Suburban Sub lots along 5th St W	617	6/5/1990	Arterial setback to 10 ft side adjacent	Yes	5th St Corridor
Rimrock West Sub	775 781	8/4/1998 10/6/1998	Height to 40’ Height to 36’	No/withdrawn No/denied	New construction
Lakeview Sub	786	12/1/1998	Rear setback to 10’	No	Withdrawn
Ironwood Sub	County 229 City 891	4/9/2002 2/4/2003	Height to 48’ Height to 48’	Yes Yes	New construction
Skyline Townhomes 600 block N 26th St	933	6/1/2004	Garage setbacks, side setback, clear vision area	Yes	New construction
Goodman Sub Julaura Ln	955	12/7/2004	Lot coverage 38%	Yes	Duplex Townhomes New construction
Twin Oaks Sub	978	1/3/2006	Side setbacks	Yes	New construction
Executive Townhomes 800 Block Avenue E	987	6/7/2006	Lot coverage 65% Front setback	Yes	19 new attached townhomes
Falcon Ridge Sub	1013	9/5/2007	Lot coverage 38%	No	New duplex townhomes
3014 Shady Lane	1035	11/6/2008	Lot coverage 50%	Yes	Addition to existing home
Wyoming & 10th St W	1159	8/7/2013	Lot area reduced	Yes	Three new 4-unit townhomes
Castle east of Ironwood	1180	4/2/2014	Height to 50 ft	Yes	New 30,000 sf house
West Park/Avenue C Apts	1193	6/4/2014	Increase units from 108 to 150	Yes	New Apartment Building
Silver Creek Estates	1224	3/2/2016	Reduce Clear Vision at 3 intersections	Yes	New construction
Lenhardt Square	1282	5/2/2018	Height to 46 ft	Yes	Two new Apartment Buildings

 
 

NORTH:	Zoning: R-70-R Land Use: Vacant
SOUTH:	Zoning: Public & R-96 Land Use: Vacant School District land and vacant residential land
EAST:	Zoning: R-70-R Land Use: Vacant
WEST:	Zoning: R-70-R Land Use: Vacant

This is a variance request to allow additional lot coverage for subdivision lots that are in the process of development. The owner has a prospective buyer, Trent Parks, who intends to construct several two-family townhomes on the property. Mr. Parks recently completed a similar development on the north end of Gleneagles Blvd. The property has also applied for a zone change from R-70-R, a district that only allows detached single family homes, to R-50, a district that allows detached or attached single family dwellings (duplex). The zone change will be heard by the Zoning Commission on July 7, 2020.

The applicant states the intention to build single-level townhomes with three bedrooms, three car garages and covered patios for each unit. It appears proposed lot 17 will accommodate only a two car garage for each unit. Planning staff calculated the proposed footprint on the lots as shown. It appears the planned footprints will cover 47% of the proposed lots and not 50%.

The city has processed several requests over the last two decades to apply variances ahead of new construction for multiple lots within a new development. Although most of these requests have been granted, each request is evaluated based on the criteria for granting variances including showing a hardship with the land, or similar variances have been granted in the area, or other parcels have developed in the same way without the benefit of a variance. In addition, the applicant should show how the proposed variance would not be out of character for the area. These are all difficult criteria to meet for an undeveloped parcel surrounded by other undeveloped land. The BOA granted a variance to allow 65% lot coverage for the Executive Townhomes on the 800 block of Avenue E in 2006. The multi-family zone district only allows 55% lot coverage. The lots were within an established neighborhood and there are specific hardship with the land, and there were several examples of similar lot coverage on surrounding parcels. Another pre-development variance was granted for Goodman Subdivision for the Julaura Lane townhomes in a R-70 zone. This application came forward due to an error by the agent who assumed the lot coverage would be 40%. Covenants and restrictions imposed required a larger first floor footprint than the 30% normally allowed in the R-70 zone district. The BOA granted the variance. In 2014, the BOA granted a lot area variance to allow 42 additional dwelling units (a 39% increase in density) for the Avenue C Apartments constructed to the north of West Park Plaza. The applicant considered a zone change to accommodate the additional density (CC to RMF) but the RMF zone has no height limit. The neighborhood was concerned about the lack of a height limit in the RMF zone. The owner instead applied for a lot area variance to achieve the higher density. A similar lot area variance was granted for the new apartments on 10th St West and Wyoming Avenue in 2013. 

Planning staff has reviewed the requested variance and the proposed findings for the variance criteria and is recommending conditional approval. One of the conditions is to reduce the lot coverage requested from 50% to 47% maximum on each lot. It appears the footprint of the structures can meet this condition. Another proposed condition is the proposed zone change must be approved and that construction on the first units must begin within 18 months of the BOA approval. Other conditions concern landscaping and screening.
 

DETERMINATIONS FOR VARIANCE 1314
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 physical special circumstances existing on this property creating a hardship that is peculiar to these lots.
 
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 BOA has granted similar subdivision-wide variances for height, lot coverage and setbacks. Of the 17 variance requests the BOA considered, four were denied or withdrawn. Rimrock West subdivision applied twice for a height variance in 1998, to allow either 40 feet or 36 feet for new homes. Planning staff recommended denial as the new homes would appear out of place with the surrounding developments and there was no hardship with the land. Another variance in 1998, for Lakeview Subdivision 2^nd Filing (Katherine Ann and Lakeview Drive) in the Heights was to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. Planning staff also recommended denial for this variance over concern about setting a precedent for the Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) zone. Planning staff had warned the developer during the subdivision process the lots were not deep enough to accommodate garage additions. In 2007, a lot coverage variance for several lots in Falcon Ridge Subdivision (West Billings) was also recommended for denial. The lots in the R-80 were large enough to accommodate the proposed single-level duplex townhomes so there was no apparent hardship with the lots and the proposed dwellings could be modified to accommodate the maximum 30% lot coverage.
 
Thirteen other similar variances have been granted. The approved variances all included new construction and the common factor for granting the variances was the ability for the proposed development to blend with the existing and surrounding developments. For example, the Ironwood Subdivision height variance to 48 feet was for a new suburban subdivision in a location far outside the existing urban development. The building heights would not impose or shadow any existing neighborhoods and although there was no hardship with the property at least one previous “blanket” variance had been granted. Similarly, a variance granted for the Twin Oaks Subdivision (Heights) to reduce a required side setback throughout the subdivision was in a newly developing area and the setback variance would not have any impact on surrounding developments.

The proposed variance shares similar characteristics to previously approved subdivision level variances. It is outside of the existing developed area of High Sierra and the closest developed lot is over 600 feet away. The additional lot coverage from 40% to 50% will be used to accommodate a patio cover and a 3^rd parking stall for the attached garages. The proposed units from the street perspective will look very similar to the townhomes the buyer built on the 2300 block of Gleneagles Boulevard to the north and east of the subject property. Based on these factors, a literal interpretation of the zoning regulations for this zone would deprive this owner of similar rights enjoyed by others in the same district.
 
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 will not allow the applicant any special privileges. Similar buildings are in the immediate vicinity and similar variances have been granted for new construction in similar situations. The applicant could have chosen a higher intensity zone district such as Residential Multi-family-Restricted (RMF-R) to accommodate the additional lot coverage. The RMF-R zone district allows 55% lot coverage. There are RMF-R zones within the Lake Hills Subdivision on Clubhouse Way. The applicant does not intend to build more than two attached dwellings, so a zone change to RMF-R would not give predictability to the surrounding property owners. The proposed Residential 5,000 (R-50) allows single family and two-family dwellings but not multi-family dwellings. The R-50 zone is limited to 40% lot coverage. The proposed zoning of R-50 would translate to an N2 or NX1 zone district in the draft new zoning districts. The N2 zone allows 40% lot coverage and the NX1 zone district allows 60% lot coverage.
 
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;
The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and the growth policy including the 2016 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 the following conditions for the lot coverage variance request:

1. The variance is from Section 27-308, requiring a maximum lot coverage of 40% to allow 47% in a proposed R-50 zone district.
2. The variance is limited to Lots 17 through 25 of Block 31, High Sierra Subdivision 16^th Filing, a 2.4 acre parcel of land.
3. The variance approval is conditioned on approval of the proposed R-50 zone district request. If the zone change is not approved, the lot coverage variance is moot.
4. The owner will apply for the first building permit within 18 months of Board approval.
5. There will be no construction activity before 7 am or after 8 pm daily.
6. Completion of construction on all units on all lots will occur within four years of Board approval.
7. Each duplex townhome will require one street tree for each dwelling unit to be planted either in the boulevard between the sidewalk and the curb or in the front yard no more than seven feet behind the sidewalk. The trees will be continuously maintained and dead trees will be removed and replaced as needed.  
8. The owner will meet all required building codes, engineering codes and other city codes applicable at the time of Building Permit application.   
9. Failure to begin or complete the actions required by this variance approval will void the variance.
10. These conditions of variance approval shall run with the land described in this authorization and shall apply to all current and subsequent owners, operators, managers, lease holders, heirs and assigns.

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
      The Planning staff recommends the first building permit be submitted within 18 months of Board approval and the construction completed on all the lots within four years of Board approval.     

 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 proposed zoning district.  Two-family dwellings and townhomes are allowed uses in the R-50 proposed zone.   
 

Staff recommends conditional approval of the variance based on the review criteria detailed in the summary section of this memo.