AGENDA CITY OF SALIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 East First Street, Salida, CO AGENDA SECTION: I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES November 23, 2015 IV. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS V. AMENDMENT(S) TO AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Radle Variance Application - The request is to receive a variance from the required 5 rear yard setback for accessory structures. The applicant is requesting a minimum allowed rear yard setback of 1.2 to build a second story addition on the existing garage to construct an accessory dwelling unit located at 117 Oak Street. A. Open Public Hearing B. Proof of Publication C. Staff Review of Application D. Applicant s Presentation E. Public Input F. Close Public Hearing G. Commission Discussion VII. VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS BOARD COMMENTS X. ADJOURN *An alternate can only vote on, or make a motion on an agenda item if they are designated as a voting member at the beginning of an agenda item. If there is a vacant seat or a conflict of interest designate the alternate that will vote on the matter. If a Voting member shows up late to a meeting, he cannot vote on the agenda item if the alternate has been designated.
The Board of Adjustment 11/23/15 DRAFT MEETING DATE: Monday, November 23, 2015 MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 E. First Street, Salida, CO Present: Follet, Wood, Cocovinis, Kasper, Thomas, Berg, Mandelkorn, Jefferson, Osborn, Campbell Absent: Schalit, Pokorny I. APPOINT CHAIRMAN Follet made a motion to appoint Mandelkorn as Chairman and Berg seconded the vote, with all in consensus the motion carried. II. CALL TO ORDER Mandelkorn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES April 27, 2015. Cocovinis made a motion to approve the minutes. Thomas seconded the motion, with all in consensus the motion carried. IV. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS - There were no unscheduled citizens. IV. AMENDMENT(S) TO AGENDA -There were no changes to the agenda. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Franco Variance Application - The request is to receive a variance from the minimum set back of minimum five (5) feet required for the rear yard setback for accessory structures. The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum allowed rear yard setback to four (4) feet to construct a second story on the existing accessory structure located at 401 Palmer Street. A. Open Public Hearing- 6:03 p.m. B. Proof of Publication - Yes C. Staff Review of Application Campbell summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval with two conditions. D. Applicant s Presentation Jorge Franco explained what his intentions are and was available to answer questions. E. Public Input None F. Close Public Hearing 6:06 p.m. - G. Commission Discussion- Berg asked about the footprint of the structure and if the applicant was going to build on that existing footprint. Franco explained that when he purchased the property the existing garage was nonconforming. Berg clarified with the applicant that he was requesting to use the exiting footprint to build the second story and he said yes. Thomas asked the applicant if the Building Department had any issues and stated that the request is for a variance along a public right-of-way. The applicant stated that the Meeting Minutes 11/23/15
The Board of Adjustment 11/23/15 DRAFT Building Department had no issues with the request. Follet asked about the foundation and Franco explained that he has engineered drawings for the foundation and stated that it meets the requirements for a second story above the existing garage. Cocovinis asked if there is a current survey of the property and stated that he concern is that the 4 is not accurate and he may find that the existing structure encroaches more than expected. Franco stated that he has not had a survey done but he just wants to go build the second story on the existing footprint. Cocovinis recommended that applicants requesting variances submit current surveys with their applications so that the Board of Adjustments knows that the setbacks are correct. Mandelkorn stated that he would be fine with approving the variance request for the construction of a second story on the footprint of the structure only. H. Commission Action - A motion was made by Berg to approve the variance application as submitted with the following conditions: 1. That if the applicant wants to change the use from accessory structure to accessory dwelling unit he is required to submit a change of use application and an administrative review application with the City. 2. That if the use changes from Home Occupation to Home Business the applicant must submit a limited impact review application and receive Planning Commission approval. 3. That the approval is for a variance for the applicant to construct a second story to match the existing footprint of the existing garage. Thomas seconded the motion. Wood and Cocovinis were opposed and the motion carried. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS- None VII. NEW BUSINESS- VIII. BOARD COMMENTS- None IX. ADJOURN- The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Meeting Minutes 11/23/15
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AGENDA SECTION: Radle Variance Application Public Hearing REQUEST: The request is to receive a variance from the required 5 rear yard setback for accessory structures. The applicant is requesting a minimum allowed rear yard setback of 1.2 to build a second story addition on the existing garage to construct an accessory dwelling unit located at 117 Oak Street. APPLICANT: The applicant is Adam and Cynthia Radle, 117 Oak Street, Salida, CO 81201. LOCATION: The subject property is known as Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 Pickett s Addition, City of Salida, Chaffee County, Colorado. This property is also known as 117 Oak Street. PROCESS: Variances are addressed in the City s Code of Ordinances, Section 16-4-180, Zoning Variances. Variances may be granted from the standards of the underlying zone district shall be authorized only for maximum height, minimum floor area, maximum lot coverage, maximum lot size, minimum setbacks and parking requirements. The Board of Adjustment holds a public hearing after fifteen days advance notice of the hearing. The public hearing shall be held, at which any person may appear or be represented by agent or attorney. The Board may describe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Zoning title of the City Code. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 1
OBSERVATIONS: 1. The subject property is located within the Commercial (C-1) zone district. Surrounding properties are primarily single-family homes. 2. The existing garage is 1 2 from the rear property line and the applicants are requesting to construct a second story accessory dwelling unit on the nonconforming structure. The lot area is 20,250 square feet and meets the density requirements for an accessory dwelling unit. 3. Accessory dwelling units require administrative approval in all zone districts. If the variance is granted the applicant will submit the necessary building permits for staff review and approval. REQUIRED SHOWING (Section 16-4-180): The applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Board of Adjustment before a variance may be authorized. A. Special Circumstances Exist. There are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to the land or building for which the variance is sought that do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood. Applicant s response: The garage was built prior to purchasing the property and is recognized by the city and county, although the code now in place does not meet setbacks. Special circumstances do exist because the current garage was built prior to the applicant owning the property. B. Not result of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any action of the applicant. Applicant s response: The garage was built prior to purchasing the property. After the inspection prior to purchasing the property, problems with the roof and exterior were revealed. The applicant purchased the property and did not construct with the existing garage. C. Strict Application Deprives Reasonable Use. The special circumstances and conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the building or land. Applicant s response: By adding a much needed rental property to Salida will be value added. It took me two years to find a rental property before purchasing the Oak Street house. Special circumstances exist because the applicants purchased the property with the existing nonconforming garage. The applicant has reasonable use of the property and denial of the variance would not deprive the applicant. D. Variance is Necessary to Provide Reasonable Use. The granting of the variance is necessary to provide the applicant a reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant s response: N/A Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 2
The applicant has reasonable use of the property but would like to add an accessory dwelling unit as a rental. E. Minimum Variance. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant s response: I plan to address the needed repairs due to the inspection report. By making the repairs and adding an ADU, an affordable rental property will be created for the citizens of Salida. The applicants have reasonable use of the property but currently do not have reasonable use of the existing nonconforming garage. They would like to make the proper repairs to the garage and then add the accessory dwelling unit. F. No Injury to the Neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood surrounding the land where the variance is proposed, and is otherwise not detrimental to the public welfare or the environment. Applicant s response: I plan to continue the pre-existing cinder block on the east side of the structure which is 1 2 from the property line. There will not be any added windows or utilities on the east side which will prevent disturbing the neighbor. I plan to use 2 hour fire rated wall plus 5 feet wrap on both the north and south sides of the structure. The City has not received any letters of opposition from the surrounding neighborhood. The variance request should not be injurious to the neighbors because the addition will be built to the building code. The addition will not restrict the neighbors ability to use and enjoy their property. G. Consistency With Code. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purposes and intent of this Land Use Code. Applicant s response: Health: close enough to the center of town to walk or ride a bike. Quality of life & Convenience: Added rental unit close to downtown. Prosperity: Allows owner to bring in revenue for the city, lessen congestion and address the lack of affordable rental property within the city. The application is consistent with code. H. Existing Primary Structure. If the proposal is an addition to a primary structure which continues the existing building line the applicant must demonstrate that maintenance of the addition on the subject property is feasible and not injurious to adjacent neighbors. Applicants Response: N/A The variance request is not for the primary structure. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 3
Review Agency Comments: Doug Bess, Fire Chief: Has no concerns Michelle Stoke, Finance Department: Will need to pay tap fees for ADU if going to rent out. The current water tap fees are $4256.00 and the sewer tap fees $2,603.00. Dan Swallow, Director of Development: I drove by the property and looked over the packet you sent. My comments are as follows: 1) The existing garage building appears to be a bit dilapidated. My initial concern was that I doubted the structural integrity of the existing building to support a second story but after reviewing the conceptual design, it appears that a new foundation system consisting of concrete pads and steel pipe columns is proposed to support the second story. W10x45 steel I-beams will span between new steel pipe columns to support the floor framing for the second story. New I- joist floor joists for the second story will cantilever past the I-beams over the existing block wall on the west side to support the second story wall. As such, it appears the second story will be structurally independent of the existing garage. 2) No wall section for the east wall of the structure was provided and therefore was not reviewed. 3) The existing east wall of the structure is 1.2 feet from the east property line according to the ILC provided in the packet. This wall consists of very old concrete masonry units (CMU) and it is unknown if this wall is grouted at all or if it is completely ungrouted. Since this wall is closer than 5 feet to the property line, it is required to be 1-hour fire-rated all the way up to the roof including the wall for the new second story. It is proposed to add to the existing CMU wall up to the full height of the new wall for the second story. Since the existing wall is so old and we do not know if it is a grouted wall or not, we would request that and engineer or architect evaluate this wall including the foundation below to determine if it could support the additional dead load of a second story CMU wall above. It is possible that the existing wall would need to be grouted in order to handle this additional dead load if it is not grouted already. No openings (doors or windows) are permitted in this wall due to its close proximity to the property line, and none are proposed. No projections such as eves would be permitted on the east wall and none appear to be proposed. In general, we are not opposed to this project and we believe that it could comply with the IRC, if designed properly. The conceptual design does appear to address the code requirements in play for construction close to the property line. The minor details noted above could be easily worked out with the designer at the plan review stage of the project. The biggest concern is the existence of a foundation under the east wall of the existing structure and its capacity to support the additional dead load of the second story CMU wall above. If the existing foundation is not adequate, it may need to be reinforced and/or added to with helical piers or some other method to be determined by an engineer. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE BOARD: 1. The Board shall confirm that adequate notice was provided and a fee paid. 2. The Board shall conduct a public hearing. 3. The Board shall make findings regarding points A through H of the above section. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 4
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That the variance request is in conformance with Section 16-4-180 (e), Required showing, because the variance allows the highest and best use of the property, will not cause harm to the neighbors and is in keeping with the general purposes of the Code. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends APPROVAL, with one (1) condition, for the applicant to receive a variance from the minimum rear yard setback of five (5) feet required for accessory structures. The applicant is requesting a minimum allowed rear yard setback to 1.2 feet to construct a second story accessory dwelling on the existing accessory structure. 1. That the applicant submits a building permit that meets the requirements of the building department. RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the recommended findings be made and the recommended action be taken. If approved, all variances shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if no building permit has been issued to establish the variation authorized, or if the variation does not require a building permit, unless the variation is established, ongoing, and in operation. Such time period shall not be altered by transfer of ownership. BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A VARIANCE, THE SALIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY BE APPEALED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DECISION BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 16-2-70 OF THE LAND USE CODE. Attachments: Application Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 5
Kristi Jefferson City of Salida Re: Request to Alter Setbacks As property owners at 409 and 419 Wood Avenue, we are strongly opposed to the request placed to the city to modify the setback requirements to only one foot. Listed below are some of our concerns: Points of Concern: 1. The request on a 1 foot set back with and a two story structure will take all privacy from both back yards of 409 Wood as well as 419 Wood Avenue. 2. With a two story structure at a 1 foot set back, I believe that would decrease the value of both properties 409 and 419. (Total elimination of privacy) 3. Based on the one foot set back, I see no way that this structure can be built without the use of my property during construction. I cannot and will not have equipment, material or workers on my property. 4. Is the purpose of the addition on to the garage additional living quarters? Rental unit/s? The current structure is made out of cinderblocks - so are they going to tear it down and build a whole new building? Will there be additional alley traffic? 5. With a two story structure one foot away, there will be snow and ice coming off the roof on to my property. 6. How do the property owners intend to maintain the property (paint, gutters, stucco, etc.) without coming on to my property? 7. If the intent is living quarters/rental units, why alter the current setbacks? There is plenty of room- 3 city lots on the former Saucke property. Why is it necessary to build so close to my property? To maximize the space for as many residences as possible? Please contact us if you have any questions. Thank you, Phil & Sandy Gardunio Ruby Hollenbeck