Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/08/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190031 - WITHDRAWN 2. APPEAL ZBA190032 Address: 214 Wood Street Owner/Petitioner: Donald Griffith Jr. Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance is to allow a carport to encroach 3.67 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA190033 Address: 225 Whedbee St Owner Daniel Baker Petitioner: David Kaplan Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(5) Project Description: This variance request is for a new accessory building with habitable space. The preferred design requires a variance to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building by 700 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet and the proposed total is 1300 square feet. The design includes 700 square feet of floor area on the first floor and 600 square feet on the upper portion. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Chair Shields called the meeting to order. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Chair Shields, to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2019 and June 20, 2019 meetings. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190018 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 1824 Lakeshore Circle Owner: Michael & Julie Estlick Petitioner: Rich & Cathy Ratschkowsky Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: The variance request is for a shed attached to the house to encroach 2.85 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. The house is setback 5.9 feet and the shed extends an additional 3.75 feet leaving a setback of 2.15 feet from the property line. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request noting the shed, which was constructed without a permit, is blocked by heavy landscaping. He also stated this application started with the previous owner of the property and the new owner is seeking the variance ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 July 11, 2019 to allow the shed to remain. Beals stated the Board may want to consider adding a condition that the shed would be removed if a fence were to be erected within three feet of either side of the property line. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the shed has been assessed for proper building technique as it was supposed to have received a building permit. Beals replied it will be and some fire rating may end up being required. Stockover asked if the shed would need to be removed should the Board place the recommended condition on the approval and the neighbor built a fence. Beals replied in the affirmative. Stockover expressed concern about that circumstance. Chair Shields asked about the intent behind the condition. Beals replied setbacks exist to provide space to safely navigate to the rear of the property in the case of an emergency. McCoy asked if this would be an issue if the shed were detached. Beals replied it would not require a building permit and would therefore not be considered an encroachment. Applicant Presentation: Michael Estlick, property owner, stated the shed is conveniently located and noted it is made of the same materials as the house. Chair Shields asked Mr. Estlick if he has begun conversations with the building department about getting the shed permitted. Mr. Estlick replied in the negative. Chair Shields asked if the shed is only accessed from the outside. Mr. Estlick replied in the affirmative. Mr. Estlick stated he is fine with the proposed condition. Stockover asked if Mr. Estlick has spoken with the neighbor on that side. Mr. Estlick replied in the affirmative. Audience Participation: Karen Schwartz, 1818 Lakeshore Circle, stated the City's inspector measured the distance between the shed and property line at 47" which makes a fence installation difficult and decreases the setback between the shed and property line to just less than two feet, which is the minimum amount required by Poudre Fire Authority. Ms. Schwartz showed photos of the property and mentioned a discussion she had with Mr. Estlick regarding making the shed narrower in order to meet requirements. She also stated the shed will need to be fire-proofed, there is no hardship in this case, and there is no evidence the petitioner has submitted for approval from the HOA's architectural control committee. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated Ms. Schwartz' concerns are valid and asked if she is most concerned about the visual or safety impacts of the shed. Ms. Schwartz replied she initially did not want to lose her opportunity to construct a fence and would behappier if the shed were shallower so as to lessen its visual impact from her front door. Vice Chair LaMastra asked how making the shed more shallow would help with the view from Ms. Schwartz' door. Ms. Schwartz replied her property is higher than Mr. Estlick's and she is of the understanding the shed cannot have doors if it is to remain at this depth. Ms. Schwartz stated she would prefer the shed have doors, be fire rated, and have a setback appropriate for emergency access in order to preserve her rights and provide storage for Mr. Estlick. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about building permit requirements for the shed. Beals replied a building permit would still be required if this variance is approved. It’s possible a building variance would be required to keep the shed in its current footprint or with a foot setback. Stockover asked when the shed was built. Beals replied his understanding is that it evolved from shelves. Ms. Schwartz replied it was constructed seven years ago. Stockover asked how long Ms. Schwartz has lived at her present location. Ms. Schwartz replied she has lived there for 12 years. Stockover asked if the metal edging and sidewalk are on her property. Ms. Schwartz replied the metal edging is on her property and she is unsure about the sidewalk. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 July 11, 2019 Stockover asked Mr. Estlick if he got a survey of the property when he purchased it. Mr. Estlick replied in the negative. Boardmembers discussed property line measurements and sidewalk additions. Meyer asked if Ms. Schwartz would need to apply for a building permit to install a fence. Beals replied a building permit would not be required; however, it would trigger a zoning violation if a fence went up and the shed was still there, if the board conditioned the approval. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the Board ultimately needs to decide whether the shed can be within the five-foot side yard setback. She stated she does not see a hardship, nor is this nominal and inconsequential; however, it is not detrimental to the public good at this point, though it may be if a fence were installed. Chair Shields stated this case is slightly different in that the structure was inherited by the new owner. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the shed has existed for seven years and questioned why it is just now an issue for Ms. Schwartz. Long stated approving the appeal with a condition may be the least problematic. Chair Shields agreed and noted this conversation would not be occurring if the structure was free- standing. He asked the neighbors for their opinions. Ms. Schwartz stated conditions make her uncomfortable as it could make things difficult when they sell their houses. She stated she and Mr. Estlick would be happy if the variance were approved for a 32" deep shed which would allow for doors and proper clearance for access. Vice Chair LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190018 under Code Section 2.10.2(H), with the condition of approval that the shed is brought back to a 32" depth and meets all applicable building code fire ratings regardless of whether or not a fence is constructed. This amount of encroachment would not be detrimental to the public good and the visual appearance of the shed will be minimal from the adjacent neighbors and the public right-of-way; therefore, it will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, Long, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190028 - APPROVED Address: 117 Pearl Street Owner/Petitioner: Chad & Kelly Mapp Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: The variance is to build an accessory building (tree house) 5 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request noting this property corners to two alleys. He stated play structures and tree houses do not typically require a building permit, except when extensions to the ground are required. He stated the nearest alley is rarely if ever used for vehicle traffic as it has become grassed over and the majority of the encroachment is the stair landing and roof awning. McCoy asked if the unused alley can be eliminated. Beals replied it would take an action of Council to vacate it. Meyer asked who mows the grass in the alley. Chad Mapp, property owner, replied he mows it. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mapp stated he is a licensed commercial general contractor and the encroachment will not be detrimental to the public good and neighbors have no concerns. He stated the structure will not diverge from the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way given the context of the Old Town neighborhood and essentially vacated alley. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 July 11, 2019 Chair Shields asked if the back of the garage is on the rear property line. Mr. Mapp replied in the affirmative and stated the eaves along the alley encroach. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal ZBA190028 under Section 2.10.2(H) finding this variance is not detrimental to the public good, the tree house is not a habitable space, and the encroachment along the alley line that is shared with a public alley that is rarely, if ever, used; therefore, this variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, Long, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190029 - APPROVED Address: 617 West Magnolia Street Petitioner/Owner: Tom & Lisa Trimmer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2) Project Description: The variance is to build an addition which encroaches 7.5 feet into the required 15 foot front setback. The existing home also encroaches 7.5 feet into the same front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request for an addition and porch that would continue the same encroaching setback as the existing house and porch. He noted other homes in the area are also encroaching which would normally allow this encroachment to occur without a variance; however, the alley breaks up the adjoining property, so a variance is required. McCoy asked if the variance is required because of the porch roof or guardrail. Beals replied the setback for both the house and porch is 15 feet so there is existing encroachment. A variance is required for an encroaching porch if there are extending columns. Applicant Presentation: Lisa Trimmer, property owner, stated the foundation of the existing house is already encroaching into the 15-foot setback and noted the actual variance request is for a 7-foot encroachment, not 7.5 feet. She stated there is unused space between the house and garage and her desire is to preserve the existing backyard rather than build into it. She stated she has taken Old Town design into account as so much of the addition will be visible from the street. Audience Participation: Frank Fritz, 619 West Magnolia, expressed support for the variance request and noted setbacks along the block are widely varied. Board Discussion: Meyer asked if the addition is within the total allowable square footage for the lot. Beals replied in the affirmative. Meyer asked if the rear lot allowable square footage would be exceeded if the addition were built onto the rear of the house. Beals replied that is likely. Meyer stated the proposal makes sense. Chair Shields agreed and noted it makes sense in keeping with existing context. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she likes the front porch addition. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal ZBA190029 under Section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the lot's unique square shape makes it difficult to place an addition in the rear of the building that complies with the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 July 11, 2019 allowable floor area in the rear half, the existing structure encroaches the same distance for both habitable space and the porch, the 7-foot front yard encroachment is within context of the other primary buildings that front onto Magnolia Street; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, and the strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Yeas: Meyer, Long, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 4. APPEAL ZBA190030 – Approved Address: 432 Park Street Petitioner/Owner: Jim Swanson & Bonnie Brummer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(5) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a new vehicle parking area (garage) to have driveway access from the street; the required access is to be taken from the alley. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. He noted this property came before the Board for a different variance request last month. Beals stated this would be a new vehicle use space with a new curb cut. Chair Shields asked about the role of the City Engineering Department. Beals replied Engineering approves curb cuts and stated alley access is typically required to reduce connection points along the street which is safer for pedestrians and bicyclists; however, there is not currently a sidewalk along this street. Long asked if a curb cut could be added in this case if there was no alley. Beals replied the Engineering Department would then need to approve the curb cut. McCoy asked about the curb damage in one photo. Jim Swanson, 432 Park Street, replied the street was recently repaved and they attempted to get the curb cut done at that time; however, despite having Engineering's approval, the Building Department is requiring the variance. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Swanson stated he would have included this as part of his first variance request if he had known it was a requirement. He stated this curb cut would allow for ADA access to his home and his property is one of the only ones in the neighborhood without sidewalks or ADA access. Mr. Swanson stated the existing structure is more of an oversized shed and the intent is to maximize its use and leave it intact. He noted every driveway across the street on Sycamore, the two properties to the east, and a majority of the properties down Park Street have front-loading driveways. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why ADA access could not be gained by constructing a walkway from the driveway to the rear of the house. Mr. Swanson replied that could be done; however, the access would have to come from the alley and that would be a less than ideal configuration. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the front walkway connects to a vertical curb on Park Street. Mr. Swanson replied he does not have a front walkway and a vertical curb surrounds the property. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if any trees would be removed. Mr. Swanson replied in the negative. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Meyer stated it makes more sense to him to demolish the existing garage and rebuild it in a proper fashion closer to the alley. He asked how the home is currently laid out. Mr. Swanson replied and stated it is a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom, 1,200 square foot home and they have two children. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 July 11, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra noted according to the applicant the Engineering Department has confirmed the property will not receive sidewalk upgrades within the next five years and many neighboring properties all take access from the street. Long stated this property is not currently being provided similar service levels to other properties and he can understand the need for this request. Chair Shields stated he would prefer to see alley access; however, adding one more curb cut on Sycamore is not going to change the character of the street based on the existing context. Vice Chair LaMastra stated an additional single car curb cut would be nominal and inconsequential and would allow this property to provide ADA access like other properties can. She asked if there are steps going into the house from the new garage. Mr. Swanson replied his understanding from his builder is that there will not be steps from the garage to the house. Long made a motion, seconded by Chair Shields, to approve Appeal ZBA190030 finding the home is not currently serviced by adequate access for someone with limited mobility whereas most homes in the area have other options, the request is not detrimental to the public good and is nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood as Sycamore already has a number of curb cuts and is not an arterial or major street. Additionally, the request will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, Long, LaMastra, Shields and Stockover. Nays: McCoy. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals noted there are items for the August meeting. • ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 8, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190032 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 214 Wood Street Owner/Petitioner: Donald Griffith Jr. Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: This variance is to allow a carport to encroach 3.67 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is part of the West Side Addition that was annexed into the City in the late 1800’s. It was platted at the same time. The lot is approximately 5,590sf in size. The property abuts two alleys on both the south and east side. Access to the carport comes from the alley. The neighboring property to the north also has a 5ft side-yard setback along the shared property line. This structure did receive a violation notice as it was built without a building permit. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The encroachment is 18ft of 180ft length of the property line. • The carport is open on all four sides • The encroachment is for two columns and 66sf of carport roof. • The property does not exceed the allowable floor area. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190032. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 8, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190033 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 225 Whedbee Street Owner: Daniel Baker Petitioner: David Kaplan Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(5) Variance Request: This variance request is for a new accessory building with habitable space. The preferred design requires a variance to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building by 700 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet and the proposed total is 1300 square feet. The design includes 700 square feet of floor area on the first floor and 600 square feet on the upper portion. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the original Town Plat of 1873. The primary structure was constructed in 1900. The number of alterations to this structure are unknown. The property is 9,500 sf. The existing buildings and proposed structure do not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot or rear half of the lot. An accessory building with habitable space is limited to 600sf of floor area. As defined floor area includes all of the first floor and those portions of the upper level that has a floor to ceiling height of 7.5’. Additionally, an accessory building cannot exceed 24ft in height. The proposed building is requesting a ceiling height higher than 7.5’ for the upper level. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval for an increase of Uonly 100sfU to enclose the staircase and finds that: • The variance of 100sf increase is not detrimental to the public good. • An enclose staircase decreases views into neighboring properties. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Further Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial for any increase in floor area to allow as a result of a higher ceiling height of 7.5’ and finds that: • With the maximum floor area used on the main level, a 50% decrease in floor area is not nominal or inconsequential. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval limited for only 100sf increase. of APPEAL ZBA190033. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Property Owners: Dan and Season Baker – 970-556-1961 Architect: Dave Kaplan – 970-682-8363 Address: 225 Whedbee St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Overview We are planning to replace the dilapidated shed/garage (Figure 1) with a two-stall garage including habitable space upstairs. Figure 1: Current garage/shed as viewed from alley. While this structure is quite close to the north property line, note that all proposed structures will conform to standard property line and solar setbacks. Our home was built in 1900 and historically was a duplex (you can still see the brick arch where the 2P nd P front door was – behind chair on front porch in Figure 2). Our current home is 1684 sq ft (1188 down and 456 upstairs with a 40 sq ft garden shed on the back – see Table 1 below). We plan to maintain the historic character of the property as we build a new accessory building. Figure 2: View of front face of house (Whedbee/street facing) Figure 3: View of back of house (West/alley facing) Garden Shed Sunporch Table 1: Lot square foot usage for 225 Whedbee St including a 600 sq ft proposed garage Location Length (E-W) [ft] Width (N-S) [ft] Area [ft^2] Main floor 42.2 27.2 1147.84 Upstairs house 38 12 456 Sun Porch (outside of main floor envelope) 9.4 4.3 40.42 Garage (ground floor) 25 24 600 Garden Shed 5 8 40 Total 2284 Our lot is a standard Old Town lot (50’ x 195’ = 9500 sq ft). By our calculations we are allowed 3625 sq ft (including the 250 sq ft additional added for each accessory building) and will use 2284 sq ft upon the completion of the new garage. Proposed Variances As a reference point for the proposed variances we have also included a set of plans (labeled “Option 1”) which include full floor plans and elevations which we believe would UnotU require any variances. The other two sets (Option 2 is related to proposed changes under Variance A1 and Option 3 is related to Variance A2). Variance A1 & A2: Access to habitable space upstairs We have two goals related to accessing the habitable space upstairs. 1) provide safe access to the habitable space with minimal impact to the privacy of our neighbors. We have ageing parents that visit from MT and would greatly value the additional safety internal stairs provides. 2) maintain the two-stall capacity of the garage. We understand that the current code states that “To the extent reasonably feasible, decks, entry doors, major entry access stairs and major windows shall face the existing building or the alley (if the lots front the alley).” and that the maximum floor area in accessory buildings is 600 square feet. The house to the south of ours (229 Whedbee St.) has a 2P nd P floor access stairs and deck located on the back of the house and in our experience it honestly it doesn’t matter whether a 2P nd P floor exterior access is on the side or back of a building the impact to the privacy of adjacent residents is notable. Regarding maintaining the two-stall capacity of our garage, we hope to minimize clutter and have a garage large enough to store cars, bikes, tools, etc in the garage and not have to add additional sheds to contain our belongings. To meet these two goals, we propose 1 of 2 variances (in order of our preference): A1: Preferred (detailed in Option 2 plans) - Increase the garage dimension square footage by the width of the stairway and interior wall (a total of 4 feet). This would bring our building dimension to 28’ (alley facing) x 25’ and maintain a two-stall garage plus providing access to the upstairs via an interior alley-access door. We accept that this would increase our lot square foot usage by 96 sq ft over the numbers listed in Table 1. In our view, this variance would comply with justification 2 that protecting the privacy of our neighbors while allowing a marginally larger building footprint would work equally well or better than the standard. A2: 2P nd P Choice (detailed in Option 3 plans) – Maintain the 24’ x 25’ (600 sq ft) building size, but allow an exterior entrance on either the north or south face (side) face of the garage with a small landing (not a full deck) to access the habitable space in the accessory building. In our view, this variance would comply with justification 3 as a side facing exterior stairway will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Variance B: Habitable space ceiling height We understand that there are several provisions in the code which work to limit the bulk and mass of new structures (including square foot allowances and maximum height of 24 feet for accessory buildings including habitable space). We plan to stay within these constraints (plus any allowances from the variance proposed above). We plan to use our habitable space for a variety of family functions and find the <7.5’ ceiling height restriction to be unnecessarily restrictive. Hence, we propose the following variance: 1. Vault the ceiling in the upstairs habitable space up to the roof joists (see plans Option 1, Section A on page A.4a, where the ceiling would be moved up to the roof joists). We would still maintain 24’ maximum building height and building footprint of 600 sq ft (with the possible addition of 96 sq ft as described in Variance A1). In our view this variance would comply with justification 3 as an upstairs ceiling height >7.5’ will not alter any aspect of the external building design/dimensions and thus not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time to review these proposed variances and we look forward to discussing them with you at the upcoming Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $*& %$& , '( # , ' &" "&%' $ &") # & &"% &"'##$) # & & %& #$"#$&* ! %& %& ! #$"#$&* ! ) & %& , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , #*& $#& , '( " , +##& (#&!#* #)" '%! $!"% ## ($%#% !#%! $! $%%% "#! % '%$ & !#%! $! © #( % #( ) " $ #'$! $ $% ! * % $$&$% ! "%& $ ) ## , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $*& %$& , '( # , !%& # $$ )%&$& "$&" !%" %&& & #$" & (&% !' ! "$&" !%" © $) !& $)!+ # % $( % "!% %&!" , ! & %%'%& "!#&' % ! + $$ % %"'& (& "!"#& "! % &# !"#& *&$ "$%& $ ! !&"%"'& +$$ & ($&"$* $)# && $)#&& + '( '($&- & +$$' # #$'"#( ' && '( &$#( '( + '(&( !!- + '(&( $&($!! #'$ %&! ( #$&( !$!$( !$ (-$$&($!! #'$)#(-$ !& "&'(($$!$&$ %&$%$' & + ( #'($&- ' ±19' ±117' ±13' ±30' ±25' ±5' , +$$ ' '( '( ±2 , '( # # ' (%!#$%( ,(& $&'( &!# # ($'$)( & & + '(&( $&($!! #'$ ' (( (! %&$ ( !*(' #) ! ! !!# $&($!! #'$ © &+ # ( &+#- % '! &* ' $#' ' (#$ . !#" ( '')'( $#%()! ' # - & & '! ' (%!#$%( $# $ ($% '%! !"%! && #)" && + '( '(#&- & +##' " "#'!"( ' && '( &#"( '( + '(&( - $&#$#'& + ( "'(#&- ' ±19' ±117' ±13' ±30' ±25' ±5' , +## ' '( '( ±2 , '( "" + '(&( #&(# "'# $& ( "#&( # #( # (-##&(# "'#)"(-# & !&'((## #&# "'(!$ ' ($ "#$( '( & "' ( #" '%( && + '(&( #&(# "'# ' (( ( $&# ( *(' ") " #&(# "'# © &+ "( &+"- ' &* ' #"' ' ("# . "! ( '')'( #"$() ' " - && ' ' ($ "#$( #" ' ('( )'( () ' !' " $ %# )) %'"' ). -)' %' $ ( ( *" SYM. MATERIAL MANUF. NOTES 1 2 LOCATION "+) %$(%&) !' ' , ()') %')%"" $(% ( )) )" &'% ) "+)( $* " " ""$ %')%"" $(% © ', $ ) ',$. " (" '+ ( %$( ( )$% "$# ) ((*() %$&)*" ( $ !. ! !' ' 0/ (" ()"+) %$ (" (%*) "+) %$ (" $%') "+) %$ (" ,()"+) %$ ) & %& %" $%%%& ! ' &" "&%' $ &") # & &"'##$) # & # "$"" !)%& " ' !#"%& !) ' ! &"% %& "!%"#& $$ )%&$& "$&" !%" %&& & #$" & (&% !' ! "$&" !%" © $) !& $)!* # % $( % "!% %&!" + ! & %%'%& "!#&' % ! * $$ % %& "! & % %& "! $,()"%"*#$ %$$,%$& ' $, "*"## &'$ $' $ ℄ () '! %+ , $%,( *" SYM. WIDTH HEIGHT STYLE MANUF. JAMB NOTES %%'( *" SYM. WIDTH HEIGHT STYLE MANUF. JAMB NOTES 1 2'-0" 2'-0" AWNING 2 2'-0" 2'-0" 3 4 1 3'-0" 6'-8" 2 3 4 2'-6" 6'-8" 5 2'-6" 6'-8" ,""" $ EXISTING WALL NEW WALL FOUNDATION 5 2'-0" 2'-0" 6 2'-0" 3'-0" 7 2'-0" 3'-0" 6 9 2'-0" 6'-8" 8 9'-0" 8'-0" WATER HEATER CLOSET 9'-0" 8'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 8 2'-0" 2'-0" 9 2'-6" 3'-6" 10 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-6" 6'-8" 10 2'-6" 6'-8" 2'-6" 6'-8" EGRESS WINDOW 2'-6" 3'-6" EGRESS WINDOW , ()! WH ) % "- (& , $) - *& ' ('( )31/04 - ' /20(%$"+" "%%'&"$( !' ' , ()') %')%"" $(% ( )) )" &'% ) "+)( $* " " ""$ %')%"" $(% © ', $ ) ',$. & (" '+ ( %$( ( )$% / "$# ) ((*() %$&)*" ( $ !. ! !' ' (" ' "%%'&"$ (" (%$ "%%'&"$ +$$ & ($&"$* $)# && $)#&& + '( '($&- & +$$' # #$'"#( ' && '( &$#( '( + '(&( !!- %&$%$' & + ( #'($&- ' ±19' ±117' ±13' ±30' ±25' ±5' , +$$ ' '( '( ±2 , '( # # %&$%$' ' + '(&( $&($!! #'$ %&! ( #$&( !$!$( !$ (-$$&($!! #'$)#(-$ !& "&'(($$!$&$ ' (%!#$%( #(&#($'( & & + '(&( $&($!! #'$ ' (( (! %&$ ( !*(' #) ! ! !!# $&($!! #'$ © &+ # ( &+#- ! '! &* ' $#' ' (#$ . !#" ( '')'( $#%()! ' # - & & '! ' (%!#$%( $#