Moving forward or backward?

The resubdividing of existing lots and how that could impact the future of zoning was a subject of the Saratoga Planning Commission during their March 12 meeting.

At the heart of the discussion was property owned by Paul Newman located at 208 W. Saratoga Avenue. Rather than either the property being a single lot or two lots, it is a lot-and-a-half.

“I’d like to put two brand new trailers on that lot-and-a-half but per zoning, I’m only allowed to do one per lot,” said Newman. “I’m asking to divide my lot-and-a-half into two three-quarter lots that will accompany two new trailer houses.”

Indeed, in each residential zone there code allows for only one main building and multiple accessory buildings. In RD 6000, where the Newman’s property is located, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. According to Newman, resubdiving the lot-and-a-half into two lots would decrease the minimum lot size from 6,000 square feet to 5,400.

According to Newman, he purchased the property from his wife’s grandfather, Val Evans, at which time there was only one trailer on the property. Newman said, however, it had hookups for two trailers.

“Since I tore it down, now I can’t go back in with two,” said Newman. “I considered building a house there, but I don’t really want to live next to Brush Creek Ranch employee housing nor do I think anybody else does. Two rentals makes the most sense there.”

Per section 18.66.040(C) of the Saratoga Municipal Code, should a nonconforming structure be moved “for any reason for any distance whatsoever” it must conform to the standards of the district in which it is located. Additionally, section 18.66.030(C) of the municipal code reads “If such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than thirty days, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the district in which such land is located.”

According to Emery Penner, director of public works, Newman had come to Saratoga Town Hall to discuss potential avenues for allowing two trailer homes on his property.

“Outside of a mobile home park, this is about the only legal avenue he has to pursue,” said Penner.

According to section 18.06.330 of the municipal code, a mobile home park is defined as “a parcel of land under single ownership which has been planned, permitted, and improved for the placement of mobile homes for nontransient use, consisting of two or more mobile home lots.”

“It would be a re-subdivision, varying the lot size from the minimum. Down the road, when we go to have the public hearing, he’ll have to do an amended subdivision plat prior to that,” said Penner. “It would be good if you could review the application, weigh in so-to-speak. You can’t vote on it tonight, he still is entitled to his public hearing after we advertise.”

As the planning commission reviewed the packet provided by Penner, members questioned Newman’s variance request along with how he wound up with a lot-and-a-half.

“People just sold half-lots and then we have people who have half of a lot, which is unfortunate because then you have two people who own half of a platted lot,” said Penner.

“It was done illegally, it was done against code,” added Chuck Davis. “Now we’ve got to clean it up.”

The primary question specifically regarding Newman’s request for a resubdivision of the property on Saratoga Avenue was whether it was prudent to turn two non-conforming lots into three non-conforming lots.

“I totally understand the need for employee housing and rentals in this town, but looking just at the land it feels like we’re going backwards taking two conforming lots and making three non-conforming lots,” said Chairwoman McCall Burau. “That doesn’t seem like it’s helping maintain the integrity of the zoning district.”

Matt Baker, meanwhile, questioned whether Newman’s request fell in with reasons provided in town code for the variance procedure. Baker specifically mentioned section 18.72.010(C)(2), which states enforcement of the code would result in an “unnecessary hardship and deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his or her land or building.” According to Baker, he didn’t believe Newman’s request qualified under that section of the code.

Additionally, Johnny Portillo, mentioned section 18.72.010(C)(6). According to this section, the granted variance must not result in an “extraordinary gain” of use, service or income for the property “when compared with adjacent, conforming uses in the same district.” According to Portillo, he believed Newman would gain income for the property compared to others in the area being able to place two mobile homes on the property instead of one.

Chia Valdez asked Newman why he chose to go the route of resubdividing the property rather than pursuing a mobile home park for the property.

“I would rather have it be two separate mobile homes for a lot of reasons. A mobile home park seems like a lot more hoops to jump through,” said Newman, “I really don’t want to have a mobile home park, I just want to have two rentals. I think it would be better for the town in the long run, too. If we have two separate lots, eventually it would be two separate sales for two different people.”

As the discussion came to a close, the planning commission asked Newman to continue working with Penner on the process ahead of his public hearing.

The next meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission will be at 5:30 p.m. on April 9 at Saratoga Town Hall.