Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 11 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 14 of 16 Mary Beth says wood is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The Lanterns and the Steel Ranch patio homes are rough cedar. Rensberger says we would duplicate the same look and method of fixed construction. DeJong says I am trying to consider a combination of materials where you get the strength, durability, and the look but not the weight and structural size requirements of wood. Mary Beth says we presented our design to the HOA and it was in keeping within that jurisdiction. Malmquist asks if the HOA is okay with your plan. Mary Beth says the HOA approved it before we came here. Meseck asks what is typically done between homes on the Steel Ranch side. Are there areas where pergolas backing to homes? Rensberger says each one has a patio, typically on the rear of the home. Most of the patios have pergolas. They are situated in such a way that adjacent to the patio is the neighbor's garage. DeJong says if we go four structures north and due east across the street, we have a pocket park. What is there? Do they have a patio on the side and a 6' fence? Mary Beth says there is a walking path. They have a patio on the side and an alternating 4' to 6' fence, and a pergola. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Robinson recommends denial. Meseck asks why did Staff not think criterion 1 and 2 were nique properties. Robinson says in regard to criterion 1, there is a physical unique circumstance of the lot. In Staffs opinion, that is looking specifically at the lot itself. The lot is a standard rectangular lot similar to the other lots in this portion of Steel Ranch. In Staff's opinion, there is nothing specific about the lot itself that is unique. There is an adjacent lot and its relationship to that lot is unique, but that is not, in Staff's opinion, not a physical circumstance of the lot in question. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Stuart says I generally think that the way the lot is situated is one of those physical things. It doesn't say situation in there, but I have always felt that what is around it and the way it's pointed is important. I tend to be a little broader in my interpretation. Rensberger says the first half of that criterion says, "Narrowness or shallowness of lot or exceptional, topographical, or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property". That is what we think. Malmquist says I agree with Stuart. When you look at the photo, it is the only property at the end of the line that is in that unique situation. Ewy says we had a similar situation in this neighborhood where it was the last home on the row and while there was a street separating them from the other lot, the lot was zoned commercial. They had the same situation of a patio and the only living space they had. They did not have that blank wall to give them some sense of privacy. Boulder Creek Builders builds with higher windows and does a lot to create a sense of privacy in a space. They don't have a situation where you have another home hulking over them. While there is a 20' buffer, it would nice to have that heavily vegetated, but it is not on their property. I argue that criterion 1 is met. There is a narrow width to the lot, while they have a little more of a setback because they have a consistent 10' of separation, it is the orientation of that Lanterns development. If the Lanterns had built along the same orientation, it wouldn't be as detrimental to their living space. Meseck says in this situation, the property itself given what it aligns to and even though it was unknown at the time, there are no other Tots oriented in such a way. I can let 1 and 2 slide. DeJong says I agree with Staff with the strict interpretation of the physical lot. It is when we get to the other physical conditions peculiar is the location of the lot. It is the only one.