CPC MINUTES
December 5, 2002
Page 1
NEW BUSINESS
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO: 4
STAFF: RACHEL TEIXEIRA
FILE NO: HO NV 02-00186 (RF) - QUASI-JUDICAL
PROJECT:1 MARLAND ROAD
APPLICANT:COLORADO ARCHITECTURE PARTNERSHIP
OWNER:TERESA MAXFIELD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request by Sharon Allen of Colorado Architecture Partnership on behalf of Teresa Maxfield for approval of non-use variance to the following section of the City Code:
Section 7.3.105.C.3 - Carports and Garages: to allow for 915 sq. ft. of storage space where 450 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
This variance is requested to construct a carport to an existing detached garage in the R (Single Family Residential) zoned property located at 1 Marland Road.
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION:
ITEM 4: HO NV 02-00186(RF) – NON-USE VARIANCE
Approve the Non-Use Variance to allow the construction of a carport to an existing detached garage, based on the finding that the request complies with the criteria set forth in Section 7.5.802.B of the Zoning Code, which includes:
- The property has exceptional or extraordinary conditions that do not generally exist in nearby properties in the same zone district.
- That the extraordinary or exceptional physical condition of the property will not allow a reasonable use of the property in its current zone in the absence of relief.
- That the granting of the variance will not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding properties.
SUMMARY:
The proposal is to increase the existing, detached garage by constructing a carport for one vehicle to the north side and converting the space from the two vehicles occupied inside the structure into other accessory uses, which requires a non-use variance approval from Section 7.3.105.C of the Zoning Code. Currently, the applicants have a five car parking arrangement, though non-conforming, consisting of a two car garage attached to the single family dwelling and a three car garage detached structure. The detached structure could be modified to eliminate two the garage stalls (leaving only one stall), converting the prior garage space to accessory space and adding a one-stall carport to the north side of the structure. The code permits for 450 sq. ft. of storage and accessory space. However, the project request includes a total of 914.5 square feet for accessory spaces.
PLANNER PRESENTATION
Ms. Rachel Teixeira, City Planning presented the variance request for a carport addition and interior remodel of a detached garage. She stated the carport addition would allow for additional space in the detached garage by relocating vehicles outside and utilizing the space inside the garage for storage and various accessory uses.
One of the adjacent property owners, located at 19 Sequoyah Road, expressed his concern that the detached structure could possibly be converted into a dwelling unit. At the November 6, 2003 Hearing Officer meeting, the abutter stated his concerns and the Hearing Officer then referred this request to the City Planning Commission. If the accessory garage structure were used as a residence, it would be in violation of the Zoning Code and subject to enforcement actions.
A letter dated November 11, 2002, was submitted from Bobbie Stewart, Vice-President of the Count Pourtales Association and indicated the Committee’s unanimous support for the proposal. (see page 75 of the agenda)
Staff finds that the granting of the variance would not greatly impact the surrounding residential area nor change the use of the property with the interior remodel. Staff finds that the above referenced three criteria, as found in Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 7.5.802.B of the Zoning Code, are met. Staff recommends approval for the submitted plan of the detached garage and additional accessory space.
Commissioner Cunningham needed clarification regarding Code Criteria A & B and the exceptional conditions for this site.
Ms. Teixeira replied that the site is not a standard-sized lot. It is a triangular-shaped lot and faces two streets instead of one. The site is one lot with two front-yard setbacks. The detached garage is a legal non-conforming status.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if the applicant is requesting relief of setback?
Ms. Teixeira replied no.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Mark Tremmel, Colorado Architecture Partnership presented the application. The detached garage was historically used to house racing cars. The proposed use is to add 305 square feet of space for a carport and convert the interior space for office and recreational uses. By interpretation of the Zoning Code, the detached garage would need a variance to revert the legal nonconforming status into a conforming status. Then the applicant would be allowed to request a building permit for the interior remodel.
Ms. Teresa Maxfield, property owner of the site presented the application. She and her husband plan to retire at this home and conduct an agricultural business, which would not generate traffic. Her husband smokes outside and she would prefer a warm space for him to smoke. They felt the detached office would offer a place for her husband and brother-in-law to smoke, watch television and provide a nearby bathroom. The applicant assured the Planning Commission that they would never rent the detached garage. Also, she stated that the neighbors were concerned that this structure would conduct wild teenage parties. Ms. Maxfield stated she has one child left at home. She assured the Planning Commission that there would never be wild parties allowed at the detached garage.
CITIZENS IN FAVOR
None.
CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION
1.Mr. James Kin, Counsel representing the adjacent property owner at 19 Sequoyah Street, spoke in opposition. Mr. Kin stated that there are no extraordinary physical conditions for this site. He felt the Zoning Code’s criteria could not be met. The previous owner housed his racing cars, which was also a nonconforming status. He felt the interior conversion is unacceptable. He felt the variance is to accommodate more livable space. The orientation of the garage, as it faces Sequoyah, has an adverse impact on the adjacent neighbor. The expansion would convert the garage to a residential looking structure with the potential for a rental property.
2.Mr. Wayne Latham, property owner at 19 Sequoyah Street spoke in opposition. He stated that there have been functions that allude to the garage being used other than a TV room. He felt the purpose of the variance is to double the maximum allowable space. He also was concerned that the property owner’s children would return from college and reside in the garage. He stated there are no streetlights near the detached garage. He was concerned that cars would be parked out of sight and sound from the main residence. He requested that the Planning Commission deny this application and preserve the character and tranquility of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Snider asked what type of previous activities met with his disfavor?
Mr. Latham replied that there were several parties inside and outside of the garage with teenagers parked along Marland St. He felt the garage conversion would encourage this behavior.
Mr. Kin returned to the podium and stated that this is a nonconforming garage and is slightly larger than the City Code allows. There has been no argument that there are comparable garages, cottages or recreational facilities within the neighborhood. He felt the adverse impact is a matter of perception because most of the recreation would be far away from the main residence. He stated that the letter from the Count Portales Association (HOA) only addresses the covenants and not compliance with the Zoning Code. He stated that the HOA only reviews the properties on Marland and to the west, which does not include Sequoyah Road. He felt the nonconforming structure should not be torn down but could be adequately modified to contain at least one car and a recreational room.
Commissioner Snider asked if the garage is accessed from Sequoyah Road?
Mr. Kin replied that the garage doors face Marland, but the driveway access is off Sequoyah Road.
Commissioner Snider asked if the neighbor would be opposed to the conversion without a carport?
Mr. Kin replied the opposition is only if the conversion is more than 450 square feet of use.
Commissioner Snider asked if the neighbor was concerned that the entertainment room was intrusive to neighbor?
Mr. Kin replied if the garage were expanded to more than 915 square feet it would be more than a garage and could possibly migrate into a dwelling unit.
Commissioner Obering asked if the applicant objects to the addition of the roof to create the carport space?
Mr. Kin replied that adding square footage would magnify the nonconforming use.
- Ms. Elaine Howard, adjacent property owner spoke in opposition. She was not in opposition to the proposed interior remodel of the detached garage, but was in opposition to the carport addition.
APPLICANT REBUTAL
Mr. Tremmel referred to the picture located on page 72 of the agenda and clarified to Ms. Howard the aesthetics of the proposed changes. He stated the current uses are in accord with the City Code. He stated that the personal habitation is permitted on an accessory structure, with the exception of a kitchen.
Commissioner Wignall asked how much additional vehicular traffic would affect Sequoyah Road?
Mr. Trummel stated the Sequoyah Road entrance is a gated driveway due to the difficulty of the garage entrance. The garage is mainly accessed from Marland.
Commissioner Blanchard requested Mr. Tremmel address the statement that this could possibly open “Pandora’s box?”
Mr. Tremmel replied that whether this opens up issues or not it is a matter of City Code. He stated that if lot size were correct there would not be a need for a variance. There is no more of a demand for accessory structures than what currently exists.
Commissioner Obering asked if City Code would allow a bathroom within a garage?
Mr. Tremmel replied yes.
Commissioner Obering asked if the applicant could modify and accomplish their basic purpose without the need of a carport?
Mr. Tremmel replied no.
Commissioner Shuttleworth clarified that size of the structure is larger than what is allowed by City Code. Thus, the structure could not be modified in any way until the City approved it as conforming status.
Commissioner Winkler asked if the proposed garage door could be seen from the street?
Mr. Tremmel replied no, (see page 72 of the CPC agenda) the garage door would not be seen from Sequoyah. The garage door would be moved to another side of the garage to accommodate the neighbor’s preference.
Commissioner Cunningham needed clarification that the City Code would allow a detached carport/patio cover if it did not attach to the existing roof.
Mr. Tice stated that there is an existing nonconforming structure due to its large size. The City Code states it could not be enlarged. If the two-car attached garage did not exist, the detached structure could be 1,650 square foot without the need of a variance.
Ms. Maxfield spoke in rebuttal. She addressed the neighbor’s main concern of teen parties. Her two college-aged children are living out of state for the next few years and would not be allowed to return home. The applicant is requesting that the existing size of the structure be converted for adult use and would not house any children returning from college.
OTHER STAFF REQUESTED TO SPEAK
Commissioner Johnson was concerned that the bathroom could migrate into a dwelling unit.
Ms. Teixeira stated a bathroom would be allowed, but the residential use would not be allowed.
Mr. Tice also addressed the use issue of the structure. The City Code allows accessory structures with a habitable space (such as an office space, recreation room or art studio). The potential for an illegally converted residence is “innocent until proven guilty.” If that should happen, the City Planning Department would open a zoning violation case.
Commissioner Johnson needed clarification regarding the carport addition.
Mr. Tice replied that the interior remodeling would be allowed with a building permit. It is the carport addition to the structure that necessitates a variance.
COMMISSIONERS AT THE TABLE
Commissioner Obering:
Commissioner Obering moved approval of Item 4, HO NV 02-00186 (RF).
Commissioner Winkler:
Seconded by Commissioner Winkler.
Commissioner Cunningham:
Commissioner Cunningham felt that Criteria A and B were not met given the exceptional conditions of the property, but felt the granting the variance would not have a negative impact upon the neighborhood. This parcel needs updating and cosmetic changes would be advantageous. He felt that the property does not impose physical constraints on the neighbors. He would support the motion.
Commissioner Murphy:
Commissioner Murphy was in support of the motion. The proposed use would enhance the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson:
Commissioner Johnson was also in support of the motion. He agreed with Commissioner Cunningham’s comments that Criteria A and B were not met. He felt that if the carport were proposed as a detached portion, the Planning Commission would not hear the variance request. He commended Mr. Tice and staff for clarifying the City Code to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Winkler:
Commissioner Winkler expressed great appreciation for the neighbors’ frustration of the application. Commissioner Winkler felt that their frustration dealt with behavioral issues and not land use issues. Commissioner Winkler felt that the more adult-like finished space would create a more adult-like behavior.
Commissioner Snider:
Commissioner Snider commended the applicant who tried to accommodate the neighborhood. He felt that the proposed structure would complement the neighborhood’s appearance.
Commissioner Wignall:
Commissioner Wignall agreed with most of the Commissioners’ comments. He preferred the proposed look as opposed to the existing facade. He would support the motion.
Commissioner Obering:
Commissioner Obering agreed with the Commissioners’ comments. He was concerned with lot size (Criteria A). He felt that larger lots are reviewed as having extraordinary circumstances and are penalized with a “one size fits all” Code criteria. The City Code applies to typical sized lots of 1/3 acre or smaller. He felt that variances are needed for larger lots that accommodate more uses. He felt this is a reasonable application of a variance and should be granted.
Commissioner Shuttleworth:
Commissioner Shuttleworth felt that the applicant was not requesting a new or additional structure; thus, the exceptional physical condition of the lot was irrelevant. He would support the motion.
Commissioner Shuttleworth called for the vote. The motion passed 9-0.
MOTION SUMMARY
It was moved by Commissioner Obering, seconded by Commissioner Winkler to approve Item 4, HO NV 02-00186 (RF). The motion passed 9-0.