HomeMy WebLinkAbout725 S. TAFT HILL RD. - MOD. OF STANDARDS - 41-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 7
Member Craig agreed with Member Torgerson and if the neighbor had agreed and did
not have a problem with this then she would think twice about it. She felt that the
applicant had other choices with what to do with the garage.
Member Colton also agreed and did feel there was a separation issue.
Member Carpenter could not find a way to make this a hardship when this was the
previous owner basically trying to get around getting a building permit. She would
support the motion.
Chairperson Gavaldon felt this was not a hardship and felt there were other creative
aspects that could be explored.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Project: Macallister Residential Group Home, #31-01
Project Description: Request for an assisted living residential group home
for six to eight elderly clients located at 1214 Catalpa
Place in the Ponds at Overland Trail, Second Filing.
The lot is 17,072 square feet and is presently vacant.
The entire subdivision is zoned RF, Foothills
Residential.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation -recommending approval of the
proposed group home. Planner Shepard referenced a letter that was handed out
tonight that staff received after the worksession on Friday.
Doug Macallister, 7766 West Ottawa Drive, Littleton gave the applicants presentation.
He stated that they are proposing to move and build a home at 1214 Catalpa Place. It
will be their residence, which is a single story building with a walkout basement. He
explained that he and his wife have a growing desire to care for the elderly, disabled
elderly or those that are impaired from living independently.
He explained that it would be a four -bedroom ranch and they propose to have six to
eight clients. He and his wife would reside in the basement. Mrs. Macallister also
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 6
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about utilities and did staff foresee any problems.
Dave Stringer, Development Review Engineering Manager replied that because this
was a modification staff has not got into those issues yet. When it comes in as a replat,
that is when utilities, engineering and storm water will have their input as to what we
think would be required for that project.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the property line being so close on the north side.
Mr. Stringer replied that he did not see a real issue with that as far as engineering is
concerned. It looks like they are willing to extend the property line to the north to the
backside of the path sidewalk. That would satisfy their concern on the Orchard Street
side. He particularly liked the idea of the removal of the two driveways on Taft Hill, that
is a major improvement as far as they are concerned.
Member Torgerson asked if the applicant had explored acquiring an additional 13 feet to
the north and doing a lot line adjustment.
Mr. Johnson replied no they have not. It is the neighbor that is opposing this. If they
would be willing, we would be interested. There is about 50 feet now between the two
structures.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of the modification request to Section
4.5(D)(1), density, of the Land Use Code. Based on the fact that it would not be
detrimental to the public good and that the strict application of the standard
should be modified due to unusual and exceptional practical difficulties unique to
the property. It would be relatively difficult to add two more units to this area of
land without having a detrimental affect to the existing home that was permitted
properly.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
The motion as approved 5-0.
Member Craig moved for denial of the setback modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(3)
of the Land Use Code. She did not feel it constitutes an unusual and exceptional
practical difficulty due to physical conditions unique to such property.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson felt that this would be detrimental and the neighbor to the north has
a legitimate concern about its proximity to their property.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 5
Member Colton asked what the applicant could do with this property if this application is
denied because of the setback. They could build a building up closer and just get one
modification to the density.
Planner Jones responded that they could level everything and build an MMN type of
apartment building. Another thing they could do is level the back building or move it to a
location on the site that would allow it. They could also divide it into three lots and have
a third unit and the density would be fine.
Member Colton asked what the minimum lot size is in MMN.
Planner Jones replied there is none.
Member Torgerson asked if the applicant has explored the building code issues in terms
of bringing this building up to code.
Mr. Johnson replied that was the first department they met with and it can be done. It
has to be brought up to today's present code and there were no issues that would stop
them from bringing the property up to code.
Member Torgerson commented that it seems like with its proximity to the property line
there will be fire separation issues.
Mr. Johnson replied that at conceptual review the fire department did not have any
issues. They just needed enough room to drag the hoses back there. He thought that
was two feet.
Member Torgerson thought that was true as far as the land planning process. In terms
of the building process there would be a lot that will have to be done in making that a
firewall if it is adjacent to a property line that close.
Mr. Johnson replied they have found out what they would have to do for that also.
Member Torgerson said that where he was going was as the property has been
described, it is a marginal structure with some damage and deterioration.
Mr. Johnson replied that it is a really nice structure, but has been neglected for five
years.
Ms. Haynes added that the inside has been remodeled so there are two bedrooms with
high ceilings, a nice bathroom and a nice little kitchen and living room area. She felt the
structure was sound but needed a lot of work.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 4
Planner Jones clarified for the Board that there is an opening in the current fence
configuration and it would be possible for someone to walk through there. -
Member Craig asked if someone were to live in the house and the opening in the fence
would still be there, would it not still be possible for someone to still cut -through the
area.
Ms. Haynes replied that there would be a driveway there and a sidewalk to the house.
The fence would be closed in because it would then be a complete residence.
Member Craig asked it there would be a fence between the two houses.
Mr. Johnson replied that both lots would be fenced in. Mr. Johnson explained the re-
configuration of the lot. He also explained that someone would be living in the structure
and it would be hard for people to cut -through your yard. Right now it looks like a
vacant lot.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked how many of the trees would be removed.
Mr. Johnson replied none.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the setbacks.
Planner Jones replied that from the west fence line it is 7.2 and to the north it is 2.8 feet.
The code would require it to be 15 feet when it is made into a new platted lot for the rear
setback.
Member Colton asked what the purpose is to have a rear setback minimum.
Planner Jones replied that it would be for privacy between the two lots. It is hard to say
in this case because the front yard will be so large, whether the rear yard needs to be or
not.
Member Colton asked what the minimum setback is for the front.
Planner Jones replied that 15 feet would be the closest they could go to the street, but
there is no limit as to how far back they can go from the street.
Member Colton asked about the side yard from another property.
Planner Jones replied that the side lot line has to be at least 5 feet away.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 3
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code for the Board. He stated that staff is on the fence with
this one and did not recommend approval or denial. Staff gave the Board two sets of
findings, one in favor and one not in favor that they could use depending on the Board's
interpretation.
CJ Haynes, property owner of 725 South Taft Hill Road stated that they were requesting
a modification. She stated that they want to increase the number of families that can
live on the site to help with the MMN zoning. She did not feel that it was a detriment to
the public good since the previous property owner stopped construction in 1995 and the
property has been decaying since then. The roof is falling in, the windows are broken
and it has been vandalized a couple times. At this point it is not fit for use until it is
brought up to code. That is their goal to bring the structure up to code and make it a
single-family residence. Taft Hill is a very busy street and removing the driveway and
putting it on the Orchard side is definitely better for safety. She stated that they would
also be closing the drive to the other single-family residence and both new driveways
would be on Orchard.
Ms. Haynes stated that they feel it is an eyesore and it is dangerous. Ms. Haynes felt
the property would be better used as something else. She also stated that the
neighbor at this time is storing a large boat right next to the garage, and the neighbor's
house is about 50 feet away. She was unsure about the neighbor's complaint because
they could make this site much more intense and have more activity on the site.
Public Input
Dorothy Benedict, 715 South Taft Hill wanted to clarify that the garage was always the
previous owners car garage. They also build a boat shelter behind it and it is about 30
inches from their property line. They also have a boat stored there but it belongs to
their son.
Public Input Closed
Member Craig asked the applicant how the "garage" with fencing around it has been
vandalized?
Russell Johnson, co -applicant responded that what has happened is it has become a
"cut -through" for the residents of the apartment building to get to Taft Hill. There is an
alleyway between the building and the fence for the apartment. It is a perfect alleyway
for kids to drink and he has picked up beer and whiskey bottles there. The structure
had been vandalized when they bought the property. The windows are broken and
paint that was stored in the building was opened and sprayed on the walls. When it was
done he did not know. There is evidence of vandalism there.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 18, 2001
Page 2
Project: 725 South Taft Hill Road — Modification of Standard,
#41-01
Project Description: Request to modify two specific sections of the Land
Use Code for an upcoming replat application. One
request is to reduce the required rear yard setback for
a residential structure, and the other request is to
deviate from the required minimum density in the
MMN zone district.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the board consider the
modification request to section 3.5.2(D)(3) and that
the board approve the modification request to section
4.5(D)(1) of the Land Use Code.
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence
Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Jones gave a visual
presentation for the Board giving location, zoning (MMN), the surrounding zoning and
uses. He stated that the site has an existing house and an existing accessory structure
in the backyard. The accessory structure was originally built as a garage. A previous
property owner had tried to convert in the past, without getting permits, to a residential
unit. They were informed at that time that they could not do that because it was too
close to the property line. The former property owner then resumed use as a garage
and storage area. The new property owner is now requesting the two modifications so
that they can convert the garage/accessory building to a residential unit.
Planner Jones explained that the modification request was coming before a formal
request to plat the lot into two lots. The two requests that they are making is to reduce
the rear yard setback. The new lot would have a front lot line on Orchard Place. The
rear lot line would be only 2.2 feet away. Planner Jones showed the Board site shots of
the site. Planner Jones also explained that the second modification request was to
reduce the required minimum density in the MMN zone district. If they create these two
lots they will not satisfy the minimum 12 units per acre in the MMN zone. They are one
unit short of meeting the requirement.
Planner Jones mentioned a letter received from the property owner directly to the north
of 725 South Taft Hill that is opposed to the granting of the modification request based
on the letter. He also clarified in the staff report the language the Board can use if they
feel the modification request satisfies the standards. Planner Jones reviewed Section