Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 02 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 21, 2016 Page7of8 Ewy asks for the six criteria to be shown on Power Point so the Board can discuss each one since Staff has recommended denial each criterion. Stuart says I will begin and let the Board know that I vote approval on each criterion. I found that criterion 1 is overwhelming because of the shape of the lot. This is a unique physical thing. There are only a few houses like this in the whole neighborhood. If this house was not raised, he could build a bigger deck. Malmquist says the shape of the lot is very unique because it looks like a baseball diamond. Stuart says the setbacks are unique. The setback total square footage is 5,000 SF. The applicant is down to 6,800 SF. He has a big setback in the front that takes up a lot of usable space. Regarding the unusual circumstances throughout the neighborhood which is criterion 2, there are only three houses similar to them. They have unusual placement of the lot. It came with 26% already used. Regarding criterion 3, physical limitations, and criterion 4, cannot reasonably be developed, this is such a modest increase of 500 SF, you can't tell it is the wrong size unless you measure it. Both criterion 3 and 4 are reasonable and the neighbors don't object. Regarding criterion 5, neighborhood character, how does it look, does it affect the neighbors, and does it look strange? I don't think you can tell that this deck is too big. Regarding criterion 6, least modification, it is a modest increase to the deck. Malmquist says it is currently 26% and it would increase to 31%, which is a small change. Meseck says I can appreciate that Staff took a conservative approach to this. Not knowing the details before this meeting, I was concerned. I want to look for something that makes this unique primarily because of "precedent" discussions. If we overrule Staff and vote this in, are we opening the door to every home in this neighborhood to develop to 30%? I now understand the shape and irregularity of the lot. The setback on this lot does impact the ability to add onto this deck. I feel more comfortable with the combination of the irregularity, the setback, and the garden level design of the home. I lean towards approval despite Staffs recommendations. Malmquist says I agree with Meseck and Stuart. It is a very modest increase and looks tasteful. The neighbors do not disagree. I don't think we have the risk of changing a "precedent" because the lot is truly unique. It is a bend in Harper Lake Drive. Ewy says we have looked at cases where decks were not adequate. We had a similar situation where the deck was so narrow, it was difficult to ingress and egress across the deck. You could not set up a table and set of chairs without worrying about grandkids falling off. While the lot is unique, it is more a situation of how the deck was designed and how things have evolved over time. It would look weird to put a small extension around the bay window to provide more than 3' to walk. Looking at the application, it appears they are trying to make two modest living areas just deep enough for a table and chair and be able to walk around them. This is not an excessive request in my opinion. The lot is unique but because it is pie -shaped, it actually lends more land to the calculation. It is awkward. In terms of it being a garden level, it presents the same challenges for anyone with this particular model trying to do any reasonable expansion of their deck. It is the type and style of the home on the lot that creates the unusual situation. think criterion 1 is yes. The deck expansion is modest and reasonable. The HOA has approved it. In terms of hardship, it is difficult to have any gatherings on a garden level or walk -out basement deck. The deck is appropriate and in character, and is a tasteful addition. Gorsevski says as a general matter, I would largely echo what has been said. I appreciate Stuart putting numbers on the fencing issue. I now appreciate we are below the threshold of 8,000 SF that Staff had explained to us. In terms of them being able to develop or remodel or build any addition, this is their envelope. I am inclined to vote in favor. Meseck asks what month this design was presented to the HOA. Hashman says at the end of October 2016.