Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2022 02 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 18, 2021 Page 3 of 5 She continues by saying that the side along Centennial Drive was determined to be the front lot line per the Municipal Codes definition of front lot line. This definition states that on a corner lot, the shortest street right-of-way line shall be considered as the front line. The side street setback is also 30ft per the R-E zoning district, so reorientation of the front lot line to be on Sunland would still result in a nonconforming setback situation. She says that the addition is 1,822 square feet total and mostly follows the existing building footprint, with the exception of a new 89 square foot covered porch on the first story and minor second -story projections along the East Elevation (Sunland Street). The height of the addition is at most 29ft-8 1/4in as measured from the average natural grade to the highest roof ridge. She concludes her presentation by reviewing the six variance criteria. The following indicates staff's analysis of each criteria: Criteria 1 - Criterion Met • Staff finds the existing primary residence's building footprint is at an unusual orientation relative to the shape of the lot. Additionally, it is unusual that the existing home encroaches into the setback without previous approval of a variance or other approved means. Criteria 2 - Criterion Met • Records of Improvement Location Certificates (ILCs) demonstrate that almost every house in the neighborhood was built to the R-E setbacks, particularly with the 30ft front and street side setback requirements. The majority of existing residences in the subdivision are oriented to be relatively parallel to the front and street -side lot lines. Criteria 3 - Criterion Met • Per the applicant's variance request letter, building the addition over the garage to setback requirements would require structural supports through the first -story garage area, rendering a portion of the garage space unusable, or it would require expensive structural changes such as beams. The resulting design would also incur significant architectural, engineering, and construction expenses relative to the current proposal. Criteria 4 - Criterion Met • The existing nonconforming setback on the first story was approved as part of the original building permit in 1985 and the applicant purchased the property in 2013, therefore the nonconformity is not the result of any actions by the applicant. Criteria 5 - Criterion Met Staff finds that the proposal would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The structure is maintaining the single-family use and the structure follows all other requirements for bulk and height beyond the portion requested for a variance. The applicant has provided signed support letters from the nearby property owners. It should be noted, however, that a letter of