Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 08 19

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 10 space, distance between the homes, and reinforces the character of standalone residential properties. Stuart states that it looks like most of what the applicant is requesting will be hidden away. He also mentions that he does not know how this proposal affects the character of the neighborhood if most of it will be hidden on the property. Ritchie says that although she understands what Board Member Stuart is saying, it does not hinder the existing or any future homeowner from doing a second story addition on this existing footprint because there would be no need for additional lot coverage, so there would be no need for another variance. Once that footprint and lot coverage is established, there would be nothing limiting that next step for impact and that could be impactful to the neighborhood. Ewy mentions that staff talked about the connection to the existing garage. If the applicant went with a breezeway instead, that would take care of the setback requirements. Would that do anything for the coverage requirements? Ritchie says no, breezeways and covered areas are still subject to lot coverage. Staff views them, such as breezeways, as standalone structures even if they are unenclosed areas. We acknowledge that the entirety of the addition is within setbacks and that there is no additional encroachment. Our primary concern is related to the lot coverage. Mihaly states that there is no floor area ratio requirement for this subdivision, correct? Ritchie says that is correct. It is just setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Mihaly asks that if the current owners could obtain the same amount of square footage if they did a second story addition. Ritchie says that they could as long as it fits within the setback, the 35 foot height limit, and the lot coverage. Mihaly asks for clarification on that if this proposal was approved, a future development could be made on top of the expanded footprint to make a very large house with a second story on that same expansion. Ritchie says that is correct because there would be no additional impact to lot coverage or setbacks at that point. The second story where you have a nonconforming setback, they would have to keep that addition within those setbacks. Stuart asks if it is possible for the board to add a condition that the existing and any future homeowners could not put a second addition on the home. Ritchie says that while the answer to that question might be yes, it is extremely difficult to track over time conditions put on properties. Future city planners might not be aware of the condition and therefore might not catch that during the permitting process. Zuccaro tells the board that if they are considering having a condition, that that would need to be a covenant that is recorded on the property that would limit it to a one-story. The covenant would not be allowed to be removed without some action by the city. It can get complicated, but that is one way of making sure the land and future property owners are aware of that restriction. Koepke asks what the proposal is for the existing garage. Ritchie says that the footprint will stay but informs the board that during the applicant's presentation, they will go into more detail of what they are doing for the inside footprint. Mihaly asks that the applicant during their presentation state the plans for the garage in regards to its capacity and number of parking spots it will have. He also asks that they show what is existing now and what is proposed.