Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 09/14/2023Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Shirley Peel 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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 8:30 AM CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Vice-Chair Lawton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Carron to approve the August 10, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted; Coffman and McCoy abstained due to their absence during the August hearing. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) NONE- APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE Prior to discussing items on the agenda, Commission Chair Shuff recused himself from and indicated a conflict of interest in his ability to hear agenda Item 1 (ZBA230016). Shuff explained that this conflict is due to the fact that his wife is the architect for the project and the petitioner for the item. Shuff indicated that a Conflict-of-Interest form had been submitted. Shuff then recused himself from the discussion and exited the room at 8:34am. Staff Liaison Noah Beals indicated that with the Chair’s recusal and Vice Chair’s absence, the Commission needs to entertain a motion from the Commission to elect a temporary Vice-Chair for discussion of Item 1 (ZBA230016). Beals then opened the floor for Commission discussion. Member McCoy made a motion nominating member Coffman for temporary Vice-Chair during Item 1 discussion. Member Vogel seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously, and Coffman was nominated to act as temporary Vice-Chair during discussion of Item 1/ZBA230016. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 1. APPEAL ZBA230016 Address: 1209 W Mountain Ave Owner: Rachel Olsen Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect, Studio S Architecture Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) & 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: There are two requests for this property: 1. Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 101 square feet. The maximum allowed for the lot is 3,150 square feet. 2. Request to exceed the maximum wall height on the west side of the building by 3 feet. The maximum wall height allowed based on the building setback from the west side property line is 22 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on W Mountain Ave, between Scott Ave and Jackson Ave. The request is to construct an addition to the existing residence; the proposed addition would be a two-story feature; the current structure is single-story. The request includes additional square footage as well as increased wall height along the west side. Beals presented floor plans of the existing structure and proposed addition, as well as renderings of the proposed addition as seen from the northeast and east. Renderings of the addition detail the need for variances based on the height of the side wall in relation to the setback, which places a portion of the wall and roof within the setback. By code, every 2ft of increased wall height requires an additional 1 feet of setback. West side elevations also describe the portion of the roof which would be inside of the required setback. Beals concluded the staff presentation with photographs of the current residence. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Rachel Olson, owner, 1209 W Mountain Ave, addressed the Commission and provided comments. Olson read from prepared remarks: As we have invested in this property and we have planned our remodel, we have tried to carefully consider the neighborhood, the history of the house, and all of our neighbors. We want to make this beautiful, 100-year-old home work for today, while preserving as much as we can. The design we are seeking with two variances will achieve two goals: the first will allow us to keep and update the original historic one-car garage; the second will allow us to minimize the height of the second-floor addition so that it creates a smaller, narrow shadow for our neighbors compared to the non-variance design. Our design decisions have been weighed with the history of the house and neighbors in mind, along with the needs of our blended family. We want to preserve as much as possible, privacy included, while making this house our home under our land use rights. We feel that old grievances from a previous project to the east may have fueled some of these fears, and for that we are very sad. They have nothing to do with this project or us. As for the actual impact on our neighbors, we have considered that in our designs and have tried to make it the best it can be for all, including us. We know that change is not easy, and we recognize that not everyone will like these changes, and ideally, we wish we could make it no impact at all, but unfortunately that is not possible. We hope that you will pass these variances so that we can reduce the impact on the home’s history, and most importantly have less impact on our neighbors. – Thank You.” Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 Applicant Heidi Shuff, architect, addressed the Commission and provided remarks with PowerPoint presentation [included in Supplemental Documents Log 2]. Shuff stated that the original one-story home will remain as-is, including exterior walls, window and door openings, and roof structure, based on a desire to maintain the existing historical structure. This is done in particular to maintain the overall look and feel from the street level. Shuff noted that this home is not deemed historical, is not in a historical designated neighborhood, and can be changed by right. All that is required is a building permit. Shuff explained that the existing 600 square foot rear porch was part of a previous addition and will be removed and replaced with the proposed addition. Net increase will be ~800 sq ft, or 50% addition of total floor area of existing. The proposed addition is 1.5 story, with a proposed new roof peak 6-feet taller than existing. The scale is not a true two-story. The first variance request is to allow an increase over allowable floor area for the lot of 101 square feet. This represents a total increase of 3.2%, which the applicants feel could be considered nominal and inconsequential. There are two existing structures on the lot: a one-car garage believed to be original to the home, and a two-car garage that was added at some later point. The plan is to maintain both structures, but they do add to the total floor area of the lot. Adding to the home to create more livable space is the homeowners’ first priority. If the variance were to be denied, the plan would be to demolish the existing one-story detached garage. The preference is to maintain the garage and rehab it in its existing character. The second variance is to allow a small triangle of the peak of the proposed gable dormer on the west side of the addition to exceed the allowable maximum wall height. The proposed roof has a cross gable against the rear of the house and a small gable that comes out to the front. The goal of the gables is to minimize the scale of the roof. Small gables on the front and back help to reduce the overall height of the roof while creating adequate ceiling height for second-story bedrooms. Cross gables, where gable roof runs perpendicular to length of property, are quite common in our historical neighborhood. Current code no longer allows for this roof type based on updated code requirements related to maximum wall height. Shuff explained and described three cross-gabled bungalows that are on the same block face as the subject property. With respect to shadows, Shuff stated that there are specific solar access setback requirements set forth in the land use code to address this, which do not apply to this project because they relate specifically to construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the north side of the subject property lot. Because this is orientated to the other direction and adjacent properties are situated east and west, the solar access setback requirements do not apply to this lot. Additionally, the proposed solution does allow for solar panels on the new south-facing roof, as existing roofs are all east and west facing. For these reasons, the applicants believe the proposed gable dormer would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a proposal that incorporates the standards. Shuff addressed letters received by neighbors in order to clarify some information that was asserted. Based on the variance guidelines set forth in the Land Use Code, the variance request must meet one of three justifications reasons. The applicants are stating that the second variance request meets the equal to or better than” justification and note that it is equal to or better than what is allowed by code rather than to what is existing or what might be preferred by neighbors or by doing nothing at all. With respect to impact to neighbor’s property concern over solar access, Shuff reiterated that this project is not required to meet solar access requirements. However, while not required by code the homeowners did choose to pursue some shadow studies to understand the potential impact and shadow studies were provided in response to neighbors’ concerns. Studies were performed at the Fall equinox as well as Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice. Existing conditions were also included for comparison. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 Based on those findings, the neighboring property to the west is not affected by shadows from the proposed addition, as the east wall of the proposed addition is ~45 feet from the neighbor’s west wall. There are also many large trees between the properties that are significantly taller than the proposed addition. With respect to privacy, the code does not contain any specific privacy guidelines; privacy is quite subjective. Not uncommon, with 5-foot setbacks, to have windows/walls in the area no more than 10 feet apart. The proposed addition is well within the required setbacks and no side setback variances are requested. The proposed addition has a 6-ft 2-in setback, which is in alignment with the existing bump out of the original home and is about 17 feet from the neighbors’ east wall. The east setback is approximately10 feet and is about 45 feet from the neighboring house. The existing windows in the home already face those of the neighboring homes and vice versa, so the new windows are similar to the existing condition. At the rear of the property is a row of dense hedges that are approximately 6 feet tall, which provides a privacy buffer between properties as well. Regarding size, a letter in opposition received stated the proposed addition would double floor area. Shuff stated that actually, the current house as listed now is 1,747 square feet. Addition would add just under 800 square feet since the project includes the removal of about 600 square feet of the former addition. Also, two story homes are allowed by code in this zone district, and the property is not subject to reduced wall height due to solar access setbacks. Shuff commented that it is worth noting that the neighborhood has multiple homes with 1.5 stories, so the addition of second story living space is in keeping with the existing character of the surrounding area. Shuff responded to a letter of opposition that was sent from a resident outside of the notice area. Shuff pointed out that this variance process is not a design review process; aesthetics and neighborhood compatibility are very subjective. This is use by right. This proposal is believed to be equal to or better than requirements in the Land Use code. The goal of the design has been to reduce massing and maintain historic and neighborhood character. Shuff concluded by noting that she lives in this neighborhood as well. Shuff stated she is passionate about her neighborhood as well as her work, and her goal is never to ruin the fabric of existing neighborhoods. Shuff wants to do things that are sensitive while also meeting the needs of her client. Acting Vice-Chair Coffman asked what would be the total building heights of the variance and non- variance options? Shuff responded that the non-variance design would be 5 feet taller than the proposed variance request. Commission member Carron asked for the ridge height of the existing home, as the variance would add 11 feet to that dimension. Shuff responded with a quick scale estimate, stating the existing ridge height is 18 feet. The proposed ridge height would be 24 feet, and with no variance would reach 29 feet. Commission member San Filippo asked Shuff if in finalizing design, were the neighbors on east/west spoken to before deciding on a variance/no variance option? Shuff stated that they had not spoken with neighbors. Homeowner Rachel Olson confirmed she did not speak to neighbors during the design process. Shuff stated that keeping the scale of the addition down is a primary goal, hence the request for variance. San Filippo confirmed his understanding of the application, stating the height deviation is at the gable end of the west side, facing 12154 Mountain. Shuff confirmed, noting the variance is needed just for the corner of the peak that crosses the setback. Public Comment: Prior to the start of Public Comment, Beals noted that the Commission received four emails regarding this item after the agenda packet was posted. Of these letters, three were in opposition and one was in support. [The letters are included in the Supplemental Document Log]. Chris Hayes, Assistant City Attorney asked if there were any objections to the consideration of these materials. Hearing no objections, the meeting continued into Public Comment. Audience member Tom Hilinski, 1215 W Mountain Ave., addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hilinski stated that they have been in the neighborhood for 30 years. This proposal would have a severe impact on their property. Hilinski stated that contrary to the applicant’s assertion, there was no knowledge of the proposed design before notice letters were received. Hilinski was shocked Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 based on the large size of building envelope. While it is understood it can be done under code, the non-variant option should have no bearing – there are numerous non-variant options that could be envisioned, not just the one being presented. Hilinski continued, stating that solar access is a big concern. Currently, they have solar access year- round, which would be impeded. They receive good, full sun in summer against the east side of the home and fear they will lose virtually all morning light if the proposed addition is constructed. Hilinski calculated a greater than 50% light loss for duration of the year. Hilinski urged the Commission to consider both variances together, as they combine to create a large envelope. Additional impacts to consider include loss of indirect skylight loss through surrounding tree canopy. This will impact the quality and enjoyability of the home they have come to enjoy, as well as necessitating more usage of energy in order to light the space with electric lighting. Additional height that comes with the variance effectively reduces the setback for that portion, bringing that wall closer to Hilinski’s wall and further impacting the views from living and dinging areas. The loss of privacy is also a big concern, as the proposed addition includes two-story large egress windows which would look directly down at a severe angle to Hilinski’s property. Regarding the justification of nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood, Hilinski asserted that the large mass proposed at the rear of the subject property is not in character with the existing neighborhood. Roof lines would not be in line with those in the surrounding area and the variance will add to the massing on the property. Hilinski commented that he had had several discussions with other neighbors, and they agree that approval of this variance request would set precedent in this neighborhood that larger, more massive buildings are permitted which would change neighborhood and lifestyle within. For all these reasons, Hilinski urges the Commission to consider denial of both variance requests. Audience member Rebecca Rosetti Sulley, 1118 W Mountain Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Rosetti stated that live across the street from the subject property, and they support the variance for a few reasons. First, the non-variance version is more impactful to the neighborhood than the proposed variance version. Also, they agree with the desire to preserve the historic nature of the property; if approved, the two variances would allow the homeowners to maintain the existing historical garage structures. Audience member Linda Joyce, 1208 W Oak, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Joyce explained that she lives across the alley from the subject property and has concerns regarding the height request and potential to limit the development of solar power. The proposed addition would limit future development of solar energy on either side, including existing solar panels located on Ms. Joyce’s garage. Joyce urged the Commission to consider the potential downsides of increased height and impact on solar development. Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron asked Staff to clarify maximum height allowed for ridge height within the N-C-L zone district. Beals responded that with existing code, building height is based on total number of stories. Ridgeline doesn’t have a cap, but gets set based on wall location. Acting Vice-Chair Coffman asked how much farther back a wall would need to be setback from property line for the proposed wall height to be compliant? Beals and Carron estimate it to be about 1.5 feet. The standard calculation is 1 foot of increased setback for every 2 feet of increased wall height. Carron, referring to winter shadow study, stated his appreciation for the thoughtfulness of design with reduced height from 29 feet to 24 feet. As proposed, this design allows for solar collection on north/south roof faces. Placing the addition at the rear of the existing structure reduces the street level impact of the increased massing. Carron asked for the floor area of the existing 1-car garage. Beals indicated the garage is just over 200 sq ft. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 Coffman opined that this request is a tricky one, because it does not appear that variance option is more impactful. However, the west wall of the addition could be moved in a foot and a half to meet code while maintaining roof massing of proposed variance option. This commission can’t dictate design, but that does provide an option other than the variance. Because of this, it is hard to determine if the proposed variance is equal to or better than if the wall were moved to provide necessary setback. Carron noted that another option would be to keep the existing area and complete it with a 5-foot roof. That could be equal to or better than doing nothing. Keeping the existing garage is minor and inconsequential. Coffman noted the increase in area is not particularly impactful given the scale of the rest of the project. What would be the impact of moving the wall? There is more than one way this could potentially meet code. However, meeting code could potentially be more impactful than the variance. Commission member San Filippo commented that he finds the no-variance option seems to have much more impact to neighbors to the east and west compared to the variance option. Also, he is mindful that egress windows on the south side have no impact on neighbors to the east. Windows on the west would be significantly higher and would have less use during the day due to their placement within a bedroom. Houses up and down Mountain Ave. have seen similar additions, wherein the massing is maintained at 1.5 stories towards the rear of the structures. Therefore, the variance option seems better than the non-variance option, and seems to be in keeping with the types of development and renovations that are occurring along this portion of Mountain Ave. Commission member McCoy agrees that the variance option appears to be less impactful. Commission member Vogel similarly agrees that variance option would be less impactful. Vogel appreciates the passion that residents of this neighborhood provide and noted that it appears the variance option is less impactful. Coffman asked Beals to return to aerial view for review. Coffman noted that it seems the proposed egress windows on west side would not be level with the living of residents to the west. Without variance, windows would be in the same location as existing. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230016 for the following reasons: the application is not detrimental to the public good; further, the proposal will promote the general purpose of the Land Use Code equally well or better than strict appliance of the Land Use Code. Yeas: San Filippo, Coffman, Vogel, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Chair Shuff re-entered the room and rejoined the hearing at 9:30am. 2. APPEAL ZBA230014 Address: 6520 Kyle Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Mauricio Aguilar Martinez Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) Project Description: This is a request to have a wall in the front yard of the house that is seven feet tall. The maximum height for a wall in front is four feet. Additionally, the wall will have four posts at the drive entrances; two that are nine feet tall and two that are twelve feet tall. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Kyle Ave just north of E Trilby Rd. The request is to build a fence/wall at the front area of the property, encompassing everything in front of the primary building. The request is to Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 build a fence taller than 4 feet. Current standards limit front yard fence height to 4 feet. Portions of the front fence are measured at 7 feet, with columns rising to 9 feet. The side-yard fence is proposed to be 6 feet tall; code allows for a maximum of 4 feet for portions of the side fence that extend beyond the front plane of the residence. To note, the fence is currently under construction; the applicant was not aware of fence height requirements nor that a building permit would be needed for fence portions over six feet, nor a variance needed for fence elements above 4 feet. Beals provided pictures of the fence as it appears currently, noting the side portion is comprised of 6-foot panel fence and front fencing is 7 feet tall with columns at the drive entrance measuring 9 feet tall. Beals explained that once the applicant was contacted by City staff to communicate that standards and permit needs were not being met, construction was paused. Some existing fencing [not the portion that is being constructed/requesting variance] is transparent and meets height requirements. The property is fairly wide, as seen in aerial and street views. Commission member San Filippo asked if there is a height standard for columns, or are they governed by fence height standard? Beals responded that all elements of a fence are held to the same height standard. San Filippo asked for confirmation that staff recommendation includes a reduced fence height of 5 feet and reduced column height of 6 feet. Beals confirmed the staff recommendation. Commission member Carron asked for confirmation of an assertion made in one letter received, stating the fence as constructed was extending over the west property line. Beals explained the City does not verify property lines, and that dispute would need to be verified by the applicant via property survey. When a building permit application is received, reviews and decisions are based off of an applicant’s known materials and where the property line is described therein. Commission member Coffman asked if there is a maximum opacity requirement for the front fence? Beals explained that at the allowed maximum 4-foot height, there is no limit to opacity. A compliant fence could be 100% opaque and/or solid; this may only be different at corner-lot sight triangles where transparency needs to be maintained. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Mauricio Aguilar, 6520 Kyle Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment via interpreter Ally Eden. Aguilar explained that he received a letter from the city stating that current fence height did not adhere to the standard. He stated that he wasn’t aware of the standard at first and is now here with a variance request to resolve the situation. Aguilar explained that the reason the fence height was increased above standard was to keep his children from running into street, as well as providing security for his residence and exterior property. Neighbors have had cars and belongings stolen in the past, as has the applicant. Aguilar concluded his comments by noting construction has begun, and money and time has already been invested into the project. The fence is composed of rock and cement. He would like to continue construction at the current height to maintain investment and safety. Commission member San Filippo noted that staff recommends a reduced wall height of 5 feet and reduced column height of 6 feet. Is this agreeable to the applicant before the Commission continues to make a decision? Aguilar asked if this would include the portions already finished. Aguilar states that he will of course take whatever action is prescribed by the Commission, but reducing the size of portions already constructed would be a financial loss at this point. San Filippo asked if a 5-foot height would provide adequate safety and security as compared to the 7- foot wall. Aguilar confirmed that it would. The reason for the 7-foot height is largely based on construction methods; the way that the bricks are stacked brings it to 7-feet tall. It would be best to maintain the existing height of construction if possible. Public Comment: Beals read in email received [included in Supplemental Documents Log 2]. In summary, the email senders do not want the wall to continue and consider it an eyesore. Previous letter from the same sender included in Agenda Packet. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 Commission Discussion: Commission member Vogel commented she appreciates the desire on the part of the applicant for increased safety and security. In the spirit of compromise, Vogel would support the staff recommendation of a 5-foot fence and 6-foot post to make this work. Commission member Coffman shares similar sentiments to those of Vogel but is ok with leaving posts at their current height because they constitute a small portion of the overall fence length. Coffman stated his support for the recommendation for 5-foot fence height as most of the impact is created by the height of the stone fence. Commission member Carron offered an additional amendment, stating his view that the side yard fence could be maintained as-is at 6 feet, as there is little difference in impact between 5- and 6-feet fence height along that side yard potion. Carron agrees that the front fence could be brought down to 5 feet. San Filippo agrees with Carron as far as having no issue with the existing height of the side yard fence. The objective of providing safety and security could be achieved by a 5-foot-high fence, as acknowledged by applicant. San Filippo suspects that some materials taken down from the front fence could potentially be re-used to finish the south portion of the fence. San Filippo supports staff recommendation to have 5-foot wall height and 6-foot column height. Carron commented that because standard 8-inch cinderblocks don’t divide evenly through 5 feet, perhaps the motion could bring the fence height up to 5ft 4in to allow for the core structure to be easily brought to the prescribed height. Chair Shuff agrees with the comment offered by Carron and would support a motion that included a revised wall height of 5 feet 4 inches. Shuff also agrees with the approach of leaving the side yard fence height at 6 feet under the justification of nominal and inconsequential. However, 7 feet is too tall for a fence that borders a public right of way. While the members of the Commission acknowledge the potential monetary impacts of reducing the wall height, the Commission can’t consider financial factors when determining an outcome, as unfortunate as this may be for the applicant. Coffman stated that he has no problem with proposing a modified wall height of 5 feet 4 inches as a means of accommodating current materials and building methods. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA230014 for the following reasons and with the following conditions: the side fence height may remain at 6 feet tall; the front fence wall may be constructed to a 5-foot 4-inch maximum wall height; columns/posts may be constructed to a 6-foot maximum height. The variance request is not detrimental to the public good; 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 purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Beals asked for clarification, noting that some columns/posts on the side yard fence appear to be slightly over 6 feet tall. Are they to be reduced to 6-feet or left as-is as a portion of the side yard fence? Coffman clarified that the side yard fence columns may be maintained as-is. Yeas: San Filippo, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Prior to discussing Item 3, Commission member San Philippo excused himself and existed the meeting in order to meet a conflicting appointment. San Philippo departed at 9:54am. 3. APPEAL ZBA230017 Address: 608 Whedbee St. Owner: Melissa and Bradley Blank Petitioner: Sean Tomlinson, Architectural Designer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6) Project Description: Land Use Review Commission Page 9 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 This is a request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed for an accessory building without habitable space by 216 square feet. The maximum floor area allowed for an accessory building in the N-C-M zone is 600 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Whedbee St, just south of E Myrtle, and is the second property in from the corner. Beals presented site plans of existing and proposed structures, noting the existing primary structure located on the front-half of the lot as well as existing garage/shed on the rear half that is not in compliance with current side or rear setback requirements. Beals explained the proposed garage would meet existing setbacks while exceeding maximum floor area for an accessory structure. The proposed structure would have a garage door facing the alley, and a south elevation with person door and windows facing the primary structure. North elevation facing neighbors would not have any doors or windows. West elevation would include a set of French doors and faces internally towards the primary residence. Pictures of the property show the existing accessory structure as it is seen from the alley as well as from the back of the primary residence. The property does not exceed allowable floor area for the lot or rear; potentially one could build two different structures to achieve desired total floor area; this variance is being requested in order to build the proposed single structure. Chair Shuff asked if, based on floor area available for the lot, the applicants could potentially build two structures without variance to achieve the same total floor area that is being proposed. Beals confirmed this understanding. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Sean Tomlinson, Tomlinson Designs 141 S College Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Tomlinson suggested this is a relatively small structure and request; the proposal is trying to create one structure so as not to create a patchwork of small buildings in the neighborhood. The house has been remodeled by previous owners. The proposed structure would create a larger garage for storage and additional space is a simpler solution than adding to existing rear dug-out additions present on the primary residence. Public Comment: NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron commented that he appreciates that the addition is subordinate to primary structure, seems appropriate. Commission member McCoy stated he has no issues with the proposal. Commission member Coffman commented that the additional space comes from lengthening not widening the structure and does not pose any real impact on the alley. Commission member Vogel supports the proposal and agrees that adding two buildings rather than the single building proposed would be more impactful. Chair Shuff commented that if this were a two-story building, this would be far more impactful. As is, he has no issue with the proposal. Commission member Coffman made a motion to approve the requested variance, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE ZBA230017 for the following reasons: the application is not detrimental to the public good; will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood; the additional floor does not exceed the Land Use Review Commission Page 10 APPROVED Minutes – September 14, 2023 lot allotments; an additional accessory building could be built with the same square footage; the proposed structure is only one story. Yeas: Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS Beals noted that we will be reviewing the 2024 LURC workplan during our next meeting. Draft of proposed updated Land Use Code is available on the website. Scheduled for first reading at City Council during their October 3rd meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:06am Meeting Minutes were approved at the October 12, 2023 LURC Regular Meeting. All members present voted to approve the Minutes, with the exception of Vice-Chair Lawton who abstained.