Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 03 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 17, 2016 Page 7 of 12 Chris Larson, 211 Lois Circle, Louisville, CO 80027 I am no relation to the applicant but I send my condolences to the applicant's family. I live at 211 Lois Circle and am kitty- corner across the way. I am here this evening because I want to make an inquiry based upon the public notice on the variance. The one thing I haven't heard is the reference to the second story. Notice was given at the public notice regarding the rear setback and maximum lot coverage requirements to allow additions to the front porch, rear deck, and second story. It is the second story piece of that notice that brings me here this evening. My concern is the vertical height of the houses in this neighborhood that create an even line at this point. My house purchased in 2010 has a very small but a wonderful view of the Front Range that comes just over the top of the houses across the street, including the one where the variance is being sought. If there were to be a change in the sight lines of the present roof structure, the height of the roof, it would encroach upon that view of the Front Range. With respect to my house's value, it would diminish it. I pose it as a question because we have not had any presentation on that. If there were to be an impact to the vertical height based upon the second story on the notice, I would oppose that. Stuart says it is my understanding that we are not raising the roof, just putting things below the roof line. Robinson says all of the variance requests relate to changes on the main level. It is my understanding that the applicant also intends to do a second story addition but no variance is required for that. They are allowed per the code to go up to 35' maximum height. It is my understanding that they are intending to add an addition above the garage, but it would comply with all zoning requirements. It would not require a variance. Chris Larson asks that the developer be mindful that the neighbors would be concerned about any potential encroachment over what is presently code. Ewy says, to clarify, in the absence of the lot coverage issue and this rear setback, the height in and of itself and the second story addition would not have come before the BOA. Robinson says yes. Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: Stuart says I see this property backs up against open space. We have seen this before with lot coverage, and I agree on all the assessments that Staff did. I would have been biased if some of the neighbors complained that the deck would be unsightly. I am fully in favor of this. Ewy says I am familiar with the neighborhood and I run the social trail on the open space. I do know, from that experience, that the homes are crowded to the rear lot lines. This particular house is set back quite a bit to the rear lot line based on how they placed the garage. It seems really awkward. I am in support of the variances. This type of topic has come up several times since I've been on the BOA. I feel that if a homeowner has purchased a house and it is still in its relatively original condition, there should be a reasonable expectation to make some amount of modifications to the home, especially when you have a home with such a small lot. The desire to enclose or cover a porch or have a deck appropriately -sized for outdoor living space, especially with the phenomenal views across that open space, is a reasonable request. This property was already legally nonconforming with the PUD at the beginning. The lot size is so minimal, it doesn't take much to bump up a couple percentage points. I think we have personally seen in this neighborhood where there are exceptionally small lots that even pushed higher than 33 %. It is not out of line with the neighborhood and other cases we've seen. I also feel that the covered porch entry is a nice aesthetic modification, especially for the split level type home. I think it will enhance the street scape. With the desire to have the widened deck, because there is a ditch behind this property and the social trail is so far to the west, I don't feel like the public would have an adverse reaction to a deck that is modestly grown by 3'. I don't think it would be noticed. I am in support of the two variance requests.