Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2019 05 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Applicant: Bruce and Cynthia Cleveland 1039 Azure Way Mr. Cleveland discusses the re -design for the porch. He tells the board that the re- design will provide a more welcoming opening for the home and provide more exterior seating for family members and guests. He hopes to use this porch for more interaction between neighbors and a place to relax and have morning coffee. He also mentions that the existing roof lines on the second story will bring alleviation. He sees that the variance is a reasonable request, seeing that it is only approximately 2.4 inches and the design will enhance the house's aesthetics. Board Questions of Applicant: Gorsevski asks the applicant to go more into detail about what the intent was behind the re -design for the porch. Was it for structural purposes? Guy Stevenson, Architect 3013 Lee Hill Drive Stevenson says the original design was to maintain the existing setbacks. The problem with the original design was that there is an existing beam carrying the load of the roof that is beside the front door in the middle of the exterior house. Any work done on the front porch would add too much Toad or pressure to the existing beam. It would tear through the house's structure. The design of going from one column to two columns would take the load and pressure off the existing beam. Public Comment in Favor: Stuart receives three additional in support emails/letters need to be added to the agenda packet. Stuart asks the Gorsevski moves and Briggs seconds a motion to add the agenda packet. Motion passes by voice vote. Public Comment Against: None heard. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: None heard. from nearby neighbors that board for a motion. these three public comments to Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Board: Stuart says that the staff report was easy to understand and compelling. The design is straight forward and that it meets all the six criteria. He is in favor of the variance. Leedy states that the variance meets all criteria that staff mentioned in their report. Gorsevski agrees that all six criteria are met. Briggs says the application is thorough and complete and that he is in favor of the application. Levinson says he is in agreement with the other board members.