Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 05 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Stuart thinks that the homeowners purchasing the house as already being nonconforming is a unique circumstance. Cooper agrees with Stuart’s remark and asks staff if they considered the slope during their evaluation. Brennan says they did look at the topographical change. There is an eight-foot difference between the highest and lowest points. The topography though did not have a huge impact since the property was already over the floor area ratio. Cooper asks staff if they think it impacted the development when the remodeling was done. She says it appears that it did have impact on why the structure was built the way it was. Did staff look at the slope as to why the construction was built the way that it was at that time? Brennan says because of the slope, that is probably why the current floor plan was a split-level. Staff did not think it was a big enough barrier to the development though. Zuccaro says there are topographical constraints that can play into a setback variance. Those physical constraints can affect setbacks. Lot coverage is related to the size of the lot regardless of the topography. The structure meets the setbacks so it appears the topography was not an issue to the setbacks. Cooper states that based on the topographical way the plot is, the structure meets all requirements that it is now. Brennan agrees except the current property is already over the maximum floor area. The setback is not changing so that was not taken into account for staff’s analysis. Cooper asks if the city penalizes the homeowner for that. Brennan says they do not but it is allowed to remain in place. Staff calls that legally nonconforming because it was built before the old town overlay regulations were adopted. Ewy says that if roughly half of the garages are detached, what makes up the other half? Brennan says it is a mixture of attached garages, carports, and some cases no garage at all. Ewy states that there are three letters of support. He then asks if staff can show them where the letters of support are in relation to the variance property and asks if there were any letters of rejection. Brennan says there are no letters of rejection. He then reviewed the locations of the letters of support. Koepke asks regarding the park’s vegetation, would there be a clear view of the porch from the park? Brennan says the vegetation would probably obscure the porch. Koepke asks that in relation to the size of garage, does staff have any comparisons of other garages in the area? Brennan says that staff did not run any data on the garages. It appears that it is one of the larger garages in comparison to the others though. Koepke asks if the finished space above the garage is unique. Brennan states that it is not unique. Staff sees it happening more often in the downtown area. Milhaly says that in regards to criteria five’s language, when does it become significant? 5