Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 09 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 16, 2017 Page 3of8 Ritchie reviewed the location of the property, noted the lot sizes for the RE zone district and summarized the proposal. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommended Board of Adjustment move to deny the variance request because not all six criteria were met. Commission Questions of Staff: Williams asked when the other addition examples of the same model of the applicant's home were approved. Ritchie said she did not look into the case history, but that the reviews of these variance types are recent. She mentioned that the policy changed in 2014, and that she does not have the date of construction or know if these properties got a variance for the additions. Christine Smock (applicant) answered Williams question by mentioning that an addition near her was completed approximately a year ago. This neighbor has a larger lot than her, and the lot is covered by approximately 2500 square feet Williams asked what the lot coverage was for these additions. Ritchie replied that staff does not have that information. Williams asked if there are any lots that are over the 30% lot coverage. Ritchie said that there are lot coverages that range from 15.4%-34.2%. She mentioned that staff recently approved 30% lot coverage for an administrative variance on a property that is diagonal of the applicants. Williams asked how many lots are over the 30% lot coverage in the applicant's neighborhood. Ritchie replied that there are no more than two or three lots. Meseck mentioned that the property was built exceeding the maximum lot coverage. If the expansion of the foot print went up instead of out, would a variance be needed? Ritchie said a variance would not be needed then. DeJong stated that the neighbor to the west of the applicant has a shallower lot than the other lots. He mentioned that we have also received a letter of support from this neighbor. What's the address for this property? Ritchie said that neighbor is 398 Sycamore Lane. Campbell asked how staff compares a lot that is in the PUD with the pre-existing requirement in the RE district. Ritchie said there are neighborhoods that have an overlaying PUD. When a property is annexed into the city, it is then zoned. For some reason, these properties received an RE zoning. In this neighborhood's PUD, they have setbacks that are different than the RE zoning. A PUD can change those development standards in the RE zone district in the city's code. However, the code also states that if the PUD does not address a standard or is silent, then you have to revert to the code and the underlying zoning. In this PUD, it does not have a lot coverage requirement; therefore, the code requires that staff look to the RE zoning which is the 20% lot coverage requirement. Campbell asked if staff could show the board where it says that in the code. Zuccaro replied that in Section 17.28.020 under the PUD regulations, the code states, "Except for those requirements specifically waived or modified in the planned unit development process approved hereunder, the yard and bulk requirements stated in chapter 17.12, chapter 17.13, and adopted city development design standards and guidelines shall apply to applications under this chapter." Williams stated that the applicant is proposing a full width. If the applicant was not proposing a full width, would it be under the 30% lot coverage? Ritchie replied that yes it would be under. The applicant has 25.5% lot coverage right now and staff believes she could get to the 30%, but what she is desiring to do requires the full width.