Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19960711DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION JULY 11, 1996 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:05p.m. with members Sven Alstrom, Robert Blaich and Dave Johnston present. Members Roger Moyer and Jake Vickery were excused. Buettow introduced new member Dave Johnston, who will be taking Marta Chaikovska’s place. Minutes MOTION: Blaich moved to adopt the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich said that there are a number of construction sites in town where people have come in, knocked down a house, dug a hole and left a mess. Blaich stated that the Stanley Tigerman house has a fence half up and half down, the neighbors are complaining because he is on P&Z and he is complaining because he is a neighbor. Blaich stated a block away somebody knocked down a house, dug a hole, filled it in and put something over it, that is how to do it right. Blaich said that the developer/contractor should have to come in and clean up the mess, it is not nice or safe, and he would like to find out what needs to be done to take action. Amy Amidon, Staff stated that part of the issue is people get demo permits, they come out pretty quickly and they have to wait a long time for their building permits. Blaich responded that the demo permits should state that the property has to be put in an acceptable condition. Alstrom stated that the McCoy house has several dead trees with a blue tarp because he ran out of money, there is an air compressor on wheels that has been there for six months. Blaich stated that you can understand the mess when work is in process. There were no members of the public present. 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION JULY 11, 1996 633 North Fourth Street Suzanne Wolff, Staff said that the owner is proposing to remodel the existing residence, as part of the remodel they propose to close in the existing garage to make an entryway to access a new elevator that will be installed, they propose to add a one car carport in front of the garage on the existing driveway. Wolff stated that this does not comply with design standards requiring the garage to be 10’ behind the front facade of the building, other additions have been proposed in the rear of the house. Wolff said that Staff has looked to see if the carport could be located elsewhere, either off the alley or in the rear, and found that off the alley in the front would destroy the existing trees, those trees will help to hide the proposed carport. Wolff stated that Staff felt that the two parking spaces in front of the house create more of an impact on the street than the proposed carport and proposes that the applicant move those two spaces and locate one parking space in the rear of the house, which could be located within the setback. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Wolff also noted that the carport would be included in FAR calculations. Blaich asked if the area above the carport would be a deck. Suzannah Reid, representing the applicant stated that it would be an extension of the existing deck. Reid said that there is not much left of the backyard, one objective of the addition was to improve a downstairs bedroom, extend it and open it to the backyard because it is their only connection to the backyard, the new addition upstairs will cover the area, they have tried to avoid cutting into any trees in the backyard, there are several large Cottonwoods. Blaich asked why the applicant did not want to put the uncovered parking space in the back. Reid responded that they want to preserve that corner of the backyard. Reid stated that the couple who own the house are becoming elderly which is one of the reasons they are adding an elevator to access the main living space on the second floor, they felt that a parking space in the back area would never be used, they only have one car and don’t want to sacrifice their backyard. Johnston asked if they would have to go in the garage, in the elevator, and outside then in the house. Reid stated yes because the configuration of the house did not leave any room for the elevator to be internal to the house. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION JULY 11, 1996 Reid said the husband has used the first floor for his office and has fallen down the stairs a number of times, so it is being moved upstairs. Johnston said the allowable FAR is 3324 and the existing house is approximately 2527, does that include the existing garage as it is today. Reid said it does not it will be added in, in terms of the addition, she said she would have to verify the numbers because they will be right at the FAR limit. Amidon said that because the carport provides one space and in theory another could be stacked behind, is it worth discussing using Grass-Crete in that area, she said it is marginal in this climate but it will regain lawn there. Blaich stated that they could integrate the Grass-Crete with whatever planting will be put in so you won’t have concrete, gravel and then planting. Buettow asked if the area would used primarily as a guest parking space, because they only have one car. Reid said yes. Blaich stated that even if the grass does not survive, that kind of design, when integrated with planting still looks better than just gravel. Blaich said that should be a condition of approval. Reid stated that she did not want it to become a maintenance thing for this couple. Blaich responded that it will not be any more maintenance than gravel, the grass will grow or it won’t grow but it will be down, it will cost them more than just having gravel. Amidon stated that whether it is grass or gravel it will still have to be plowed. Buettow asked the dimensions of the carport, from the model it appears you only need 18’. Reid stated that because of the FAR, she thinks it will be as small as it can be. Buettow stated that the more that is minimized, the better. Blaich asked about the access in and out of the car with the structure holding up the deck, will people parking on the opposite side of that be pulling in and hitting the column. Reid responded that the column will be behind the fence from the other parking area. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION JULY 11, 1996 MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the variance request finding that the impact of the one-car carport on the street will be minimal with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall eliminate one parking space, the furthest to the South, the parking space furthest to the North will be constructed of Grass-Crete or something acceptable to Staff. 2) One uncovered parking space shall be provided in the rear of the residence to be accessed from the alley. The parking space may be located within the rear yard setback. 3) The carport shall not be excluded from floor area calculations. 4) The carport shall be a maximum of 18’. Seconded by Alstrom. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk Minutes ________________________________ __________________________ 1 633 North Fourth Street ________________________________ _____________ 2 4