Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes HO 1-25-212 BZA Hearing Officer Minutes 1-25-21 • We recommend approval with two conditions – dedication of street ROW along 106th Street and contributing money to the thoroughfare fund in the amount it costs to construct the new multi-use path Board Comments: Alan • Question for Legal: Since they are choosing not to replat this area, would the plats have to vacated first? Paul Reis: They would vacate the existing plat and create a 1-lot subdivision Approved 1-0 with the Conditions: 1.) Dedication of 106th Street right of way to the City per the Thoroughfare Plan Map, and 2.) Construction of the 10-ft wide multiuse path along the two parcels’ 140-ft frontage (or payment for what it could cost to build the path into the City’s Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund). (V) Lapel Home Variances. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: 4. Docket No. PZ -2020-00217 V UDO Section 3.64.C.3: Max. 45% lot cover allowed, 49% proposed. 5. Docket No. PZ-2020-00218 V UDO Section 5.78.J: Window wells cannot project more than 24” into a required yard, 46” projection proposed. The site is located at 130 First Ave NW and is zoned R4/Residence and Old Town Overlay Character Subarea. Filed by John Hefton of Old Town Design Group. Petitioner: Justin Moffett: Old Town Design Group • We have made this same variance request 3-4 times in the last few months in the Old Town area. • Presented a site plan, there’s alley access to the west • This site is in the process of a replat. We are widening the lot. We own both properties to the south and north and will replat as one lot. • The new Ordinance langue now includes all impervious surfaces such as driveways and sidewalks to be included in the lot coverage calculation. • We would be able to build a duplex on this lot which allows 70% lot coverage, a single-family dwelling only allows only 45% • We are paying into the stormwater fund • The window well on the north side of the building will allow natural light in basement living space • Staff requested us to the move the window well to the rear of the home. This is not practical with this floor plan. We will add a safety feature over the window well or place a protective fence around it. • We own the adjacent northern property of the subject site so we would represent anyone who purchases it Public Comments: None Department Report: Angie Conn • Staff does not have any issues with the lot coverage request to increase to 49% • We have a slight concern with the window wells, since they are only 1’-2’ from the side property lines. The concern is the possibility of trespassing on adjacent properties. • Staff recommends positive consideration of both variances with the possible condition of removing the northern window well which is not needed for life-safety reasons, and only used for allowing natural light in. Board Comments: Alan Potasnik • Can the Petitioner explain again the cover or fencing for the northern window well? Justin Moffett: Since we are close to the property line, we can provide some sort of cover or decorative fencing. This would protect the adjacent property owner from falling into it. These types of window wells exist all over the neighborhood. We hope people are neighborly, and that everyone would respect everyone’s property. I’m more concern with life- safety. Not allowing the northern window would take away the natural light in the basement living area. • I see the hardship with moving the window well to the other side. I do agree with covering the window well or placing some protective fencing around to protect the safety of individuals walking by it. Justin Moffett: We can commit to covering it. Angie Conn: Can the two window wells on the south side be covered? Justin Moffett: Those are more difficult to cover since they are irregular in shape. They sit above the ground. Approved 1-0 with the Condition the north window well is covered with a grate or fencing is placed around it.