Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout726 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. - ENLARGEMENT OF BUILDING CONTAINING A NON-CONFORMING USE - 4-09 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTomission of the applicant -- the narrow lot, small year yard, and existing garage, all established prior to current parking requirements, create the unique situation; and the cost and difficulty of removing the garage and paving the yard would represent undue hardship upon the owner. Furthermore, the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The development plan adds a requirement for one additional parking space to current requirements, and the whole arrangement of the garage, driveway, and street, will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. C. The request complies with applicable standards of the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone district. D. The addition of two bedrooms, a bathroom and a closet to the second floor of the existing dwelling does not adversely affect the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Modification to 1.5.5(A)(10) and 1.5.5(B) of the Land Use Code, and related approval of the 726 West Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming Use, #4-09. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Photos (3 pages) 3. Site Plan 4. Front and Rear Elevations 5. East and West Elevations 6. Diagram Showing 4 Parking Spaces The proposed addition adds one more required space than the dwelling would require in its current condition under today's parking standards. In other words, the dwelling is already functioning with two fewer countable spaces than the Code would require. To summarize the analysis based on criteria above, staff finds that removing the garage, and paving the majority of the rear yard is clearly not worthwhile. The neighborhood character is single-family houses with yards. Despite the dwelling unit in the basement, the property has a single-family character. The request is from a growing young family desiring to remain in the house. Even if the unit became a rental in the future, the neighborhood could continue to accommodate any parking associated with this property. Also, staff finds that the lack of a parking lot does not warrant denial of the proposed addition; and does not warrant removal of the kitchen in the basement, which predates current zoning but is the trigger for this development plan and thereby invokes the parking standard. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: In evaluating the request to enlarge a building containing a non -conforming use staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The request satisfies the requirements of Section 1.5.5 of the Land Use Code with the exception of a required parking lot with 4 parking spaces. B. A Modification to Standards regarding a required parking lot is warranted under Section 2.8.2(H)(1),(3), and (4) of the Land Use Code. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard, because the general purpose of safe, convenient, and attractive vehicular use areas is met as well or better by existing development, as by a plan that removes the garage and introduces a parking lot into the rear yard because existing parking on the street, in the driveway, and in the garage, eliminate the need to meet the purpose of the standard by sacrificing rear yard space for a parking lot, particularly in the single family neighborhood context. Providing a parking lot would result in a less compatible, less livable built environment without improving safety, convenience, or attractiveness of vehicular use areas associated with the property. Furthermore, due to extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property including exceptional narrowness, the presence of a quality garage structure legally permitted and built in 1931, and the neighborhood context of houses and yards, the strict application of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner, and that those difficulties and hardship are not caused by the act or Following are staff comments on the highlighted criteria: Regarding 2.8.2(H)(1) above, "...equally well or better...", staff contends that the general purpose of safe, convenient, and attractive vehicular use areas is met as well or better by existing development, as by a plan that removes the garage and forces a parking lot into the rear yard. The standard is geared to multi -family developments with parking lots. This site and this neighborhood accommodate parking differently. The long driveway could accommodate three cars in the side yard, without cars protruding forward of the face of the house. Also, the extensive street parking in the neighborhood offsets any need to sacrifice rear yard space for a parking lot in this circumstance, in staffs opinion. These are parking spaces that can't be counted toward the standard, but they represent the reality of how parking works in this area. The possibility of multiple cars in the long driveway comes with a convenience problem that may limit its use depending on how the household manages their driving. In comparison to the alternative of providing the parking, however, that convenience problem is countered by the severe attractiveness problem that would come with paving the rear yard and loss of the quality, complementary garage structure. The ultimate answer to any parking question in this circumstance is the extensive street parking in the neighborhood, which in staffs opinion, offsets any need to sacrifice rear yard space for a parking lot. Regarding 2.8.2(H)(3) above, "...physical conditions unique to such property..." or "...strict application would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or undue hardship upon the owner...", staff contends that the narrow lot and small yard fit this criterion. Also, the cost and difficulty of removing the garage and paving the yard would represent undue hardship upon the owner. The loss of the attractive, compatible garage and yard also contribute to this unique situation and its practical difficulties. Complying with the parking standard will result in a less compatible, less livable built environment, in staffs opinion. Regarding 2.8.2(H)(4) above, "...nominal and inconsequential...", staff contends that the addition does not affect the current parking situation in any consequential way. The neighborhood has houses of many different bedroom counts, households have different -size fleets of cars, which change over time, and many houses have similar driveway/garage space; and the neighborhood absorbs them all gracefully. Staff finds that the neighborhood can likewise absorb any impacts of the proposed addition gracefully. 2.8.2 Modification Review Standards (H) The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that. (1) the plan is submitted sranaara Tor wmcn aumoa►Ticarion is requesrea; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of citywide concern or would result I in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason al conditions or other topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's This standard is an issue, because of the parking requirements noted previously. The Modification of Standards for (A)(10) above, needs to apply to this standard as well. Staffs evaluation of the Modification is presented later in this Staff Report. There are no other issues regarding development standards for the parcel of ground. (C) The hours of operation of a nonconforming use may not be extended into the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No issue. STAFF EVALUATION OF MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS 1.5.5 (A)(10) AND 1.5.5(B): All standards in the Land Use Code allow for Modification. The proposed addition which triggers the PDP would result in a total requirement of 4 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing no changes to the site, which only has one parking space that counts toward the requirement. Specifically, the PDP triggers standard 1.5.5(A)(10) requiring no increase in non- compliance with parking standards; and also 1.5.5(B) which requires bringing the lot into overall compliance with development standards including the required 4 parking spaces. Staff supports a Modification to these two standards. The only way to physically fit three more parking spaces on this lot is to remove the existing garage, widen the driveway, and pave four parking spaces perpendicular to the driveway in the rear yard. This would require paving almost the entire rear yard, leaving a perimeter strip of landscaping. The garage is brick, with shingled gable ends. It complements the house and dates to construction of the house. In fact, staff finds that to add even one space would require the removal of the garage, widening of the driveway, and paving spaces perpendicular to the driveway with dramatic impacts to the rear yard. Attachment 6 shows this. Staff support for -the Modification is based on three of the criteria found in Section 2.8.2(H) governing Modifications. The three criteria are highlighted below with bold and shading: (10) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not increase or amplify any inconsistency with the parking standards contained within this Land Use Code. This is an issue -- a Modification of Standards is required for this standard. The table below shows minimum parking requirements found in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), Parking Lots — Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for [a Two - Family Dwelling]: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces/Dwelling Unit One or Less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2 Four and Above 2.5 The proposed addition of two bedrooms will create a four -bedroom dwelling unit from the current two -bedroom unit, to go with the one -bedroom dwelling unit in the basement, requiring four parking spaces total. Currently, the lot only has one off-street parking space that counts toward parking requirements, based on the existing single -car driveway and garage. The proposal is to leave the lot as -is, with just the one "countable" parking space. Staffs evaluation of the proposed Modification presented later in this Staff Report. (11) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not hinder the future development of surrounding properties in accordance with the Land Use Code. No Issue. (12) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not present a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the city or its residents. No issue. (B) Where a building, facility, equipment or structure is enlarged, expanded or added pursuant to Section 1.5.5(A), the parcel of ground upon which the building, facility, equipment or structure is located shall be brought into compliance with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Land Use Code. Any new structure that is added to said parcel of ground shall also comply with the applicable general development standards and district standards referenced above. (3) The nonconforming use shall not be expanded beyond the limits of the parcel of property upon which such use existed at the time it became nonconforming. Staff comment: No issue. (4) Additional traffic generated by an enlargement, expansion or construction must be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems, or causing or increasing level of service standard deficiencies. Staff comment: No issue. (5) The noise and vibration levels that may be generated by the nonconforming use shall not be increased beyond the levels that existed prior to the enlargement, expansion or construction that is under consideration. Staff comment: No issue. (6) The outdoor storage areas shall not be expanded or located any closer to an adjoining residential development as a result of the enlargement, expansion or construction. Staff comment: No issue. (7) The proposed addition shall not add more than twenty-five (25) percent of new floor area to existing buildings on the site. No issue. The addition would be 500 square feet added to a building containing 2,500 square feet. The basement currently contains an 850 square -foot dwelling unit; the main floor is 1150 square feet; and the second floor contains 500 square feet. (8) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not exceed the building height requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. No issue. The maximum allowable building height is two stories for the N-C-L zone district. The proposed addition does not exceed this limit, and the second story is of typical proportions. (9) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not further encroach upon any nonconforming setback. No issue. With the proposed addition, the structure still complies with setback requirements of the N-C-L zone district. Normally, this proposed addition would only require a building permit, but the non -conforming designation of the property triggers a Project Development Plan (PDP) process, PDP fees, and hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. The R-L zoning designation was later changed to the current Neighborhood Conservation -Low Density (N-C-L) designation in 1991, although the latter change did not affect the "non -conforming" status of the property. A new duplex would not be a permitted use at the time of this writing in the N-C-L zone. Surrounding lots are all zoned N-C-L. Neighborhood Conservation -Medium Density zoning occurs on blocks to the north and east of the block on which the subject lot sits. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS: The requirements of Division 1.5, Non -Conforming Uses and Structures, Section 1.5.5, Enlargement of Building and Expansion of Facilities or Structures, are listed as follows (emphasis added with bold and shading). Staff comments follow each standard. (A) A proposal for the enlargement or expansion'of a burldmg, containing a nonconforming use, a proposal for an expansion of existing facilities and equipment which are located on the lot and associated with the nonconforming use (such as expanding the number of fuel pumps at a gas station), and a proposal for adding facilities or structures to the lot which are associated with the nonconforming use, (such as a new canopy over a fuel pump island), shall require fhe approval of the Planning and Zoning Board. In considering such proposals,. the -Planning. a_nd Zoning Board shall make a finding as to: whether, or not the enlargement, expansion, or addition would adversely affectthe I urrounding properties. In making such determination, the.Board and the applicant shall be governed by the following `limitations: (1) The nonconforming use shall not be changed (except to a conforming use) as a result of enlargement, expansion or construction. Staff comment: No issue. (2) The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not result in the conversion of the nonconforming use of a seasonal to a year-round operation, nor shall it result in the hours of operation being extended into the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Staff comment: No issue. PROJECT: 726 West Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming Use, #4-09 APPLICANT: Brennan Evans PO Box 1159 Fort Collins, CO 80522 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to add two bedrooms, a bathroom and a closet to the second floor of an existing dwelling unit within a two-family dwelling (duplex) located at 726 West Mountain Ave. There would be no building expansion outside the existing building footprint. The duplex has been considered a legal non -conforming use since the 1980 adoption of the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed project is governed by Section 1.5.5 of the Land Use Code regarding Enlargement of a . Non -Conforming Use. Staff finds that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 1.5.5, with the exception of parking standards for the two-family dwelling. A Modification of Standards is proposed in this regard, in order to allow the existing garage and small, landscaped rear yard to remain as they are, and avoid converting them to additional parking as would otherwise be required. BACKGROUND: The property has not been through any previous land use review processes. The property was annexed in 1887 in the Loomis Addition Annexation. The residence was built in 1918 and a basement apartment in the dwelling is tied to a building permit dated 1931. The property has the original single -car detached garage in the rear yard, with a long driveway from Mountain Avenue. Because of the dwelling unit in the basement, this structure was a legally permitted duplex prior to the adoption of the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district in 1980; the new R-L zoning made the duplex a "non -conforming use" at that time. That non -conforming designation remains today.