Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 07 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 17 DeJong asks if there will be additional stairs or anything else. Nelson says the stairs are included in the calculation for the lot coverage. DeJong asks about the smaller covered porch, will there be egress to the outside. Nelson says there will be a sliding door off the master bedroom to that porch, but there will be a banister around it. Public Present in Favor of Application: None. Public Present in Opposition of Application: None. Emails entered into record: Meseck says we have four emails, all in,..avor of the application. Stuart makes motion to enter emails into the record, DeJong secs.: he motion. Motion passes by voice vote. Public Hearing Closed/Board Discussion: Stuart says I am swayed by the vacant lot argument, t -re is eno -xtra space, but that is not sufficient. There are other things such as the lot LW and shape and situation. Staff did the right thing in interpreting the code by the rules. When I look at the situation, I am of the mind that#1, #2, and #3 lot coverage could be passed for lot size. When I look at the 21.6% versus 20%, the lot is quite private and you can't see what he is doing. The neighbors don't mind and say they like it. All the changes are in the back where nobody can see them. It does not change the character of the neighborhood or change the value of anyone's properties. In sum, these sway me to not want to deny this. I am open to hear what everyone thinks. DeJong says I am still a little confused with regard to the actual plan as presented. There appear to be two wood decks, one new and one existing. I don't know if the existing wood deck was included in the actual calculation shown on the plan. In overall appearances, I still believe there is some design flexibility associated with having two covered porches and the rear deck. I don't see a compelling reason to exceed the lot coverage limits. I think it would be a bad precedent to set to allow exceedance of lot coverage. Meseck says I tend to agree as well. As far as the setbacks, I am convinced that the design in and of itself makes it critical to keep and encroach the slight amount. I have no issues with it. I am on the same side that we need to have some very compelling reasons to overcome what Staff has concluded with regard to lot coverage. There are some things in here that can be altered such as removing the rear deck from the lot coverage, and some covered porches that could be partially covered. We may be able to recover some square footage somewhere else. I know that the applicant has hit a good limit with regard to the architect, but knowing these things, some minor alterations might be made which would slide this into the 20%. Campbell says my question about the hardship and the answer puzzles me because the hardship he described was personal in nature as opposed to having anything to do with the lot. It appears to me that Criterion #1 was not met because there is no real compelling reason for physical conditions not met. My question about the garage and the addition to the garage roof sounded like it had more to do with architecture than actually expanding it. I would be inclined to question whether the hardship criterion is met. It seems to me that some other modifications to these plans can be made. I recognize that the architect was employed to do these plans but I don't think he tried to make the plans comply with the setbacks. Stuart says I understand the hardship to be, as you get old, you want to get rid of stairs and you want to spread sideways. He clearly could build the house up and not fight this problem at all. But he is not and that is the hardship. He is being forced because he knows he wants fewer stairs in this design, and it pushes him to the edge and slightly over. By the sum of this, I am inclined to think it is okay. Ewy says I have a slightly different take. The garage widening and addition does not bother me. I realize there is a setback encroachment, but having a widened garage above what a 1970s design is would actually help from an aging-in-place condition. You can enter and exit your