10A Action 2011 0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minutes June 2, 2011 Agenda No. 11-06 Page 3 of 8 understands it, there is a way to add onto the home at 908 Dowling Boulevard without such an impact on the neighbor's property, and asked the BZA to take that into consideration. Planner Hamer presented the staff report via PowerPoint. She explained that the applicant proposed a 692 -square -foot addition to the rear of the one-story home at 908 Dowling Boulevard, with approximately 335 square feet for a family room, half -bath and laundry area on the first floor and 355 square feet for a master bedroom and full bathroom on the second floor. With the remodel adding less than 100% to the residence's existing living area, she noted, the Zoning Code called for a minor site plan review, which involves analysis and approval by the Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO). She stated that once the application was complete, staff advised the applicant to erect story poles to frame out the location of walls and the highest point of the addition. Neighboring property owners were duly notified, with an invitation to comment before the ZEO made his decision. According to Planner Hamer, two letters arrived during the 10 -day comment period: one from Harry and Louise Metaxas (900 Dowling Boulevard) stating their objections and another from Pedro and Linda Vieira (914 Dowling Boulevard) in support of the applicant's proposal. Planner Hamer pointed out that the proposed addition mirrors the half -circle and slider windows on the existing home and the pitch of the proposed second -story roof matches that of the existing roof. She explained how the daylight plane was calculated in the context of the five-foot side yard setbacks and 19.5 -foot wall heights; the building may not intrude on the daylight plane envelope measured at 45 degrees from the edge of the setback to the top of the wall. She added that building projections such as eaves are allowed to encroach up to two feet into that area. The ZEO also takes into account the scaled plans and comments received before making a decision, Planner Hamer explained, as well as Zoning Code Section 2-580 (H)(1-4), which requires that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with four standards: • (H)(1) - Architecture appropriate and consistently applied • (H)(2) - Visual mass deemphasized • (H)(3) - Neighborhood existing visual character valued • (H)(4) - Physical impacts to neighbors minimized Planner Hamer mentioned that Mr. Metaxas filed his appeal shortly after the ZEO announced approval of the applicant's proposal and claimed that the proposal failed to meet three of the four standards: the addition had a "tacked on" appearance [concerning H)(1)], many neighbors expressed dislike of the proposed addition and said it didn't "fit in" [concerning (H)(3)], and the applicant's design did nothing to minimize impacts to the neighbor [concerning [(H)(4)]. In terms of (H)(1), Planner Hamer said that the addition should not have the appearance of being tacked on; should have adequate articulation with appropriate window placement, architectural detailing, and roof forms; and should be consistent with the existing residence in terms of design and use of materials. She said that the home is a Spanish Colonial bungalow style with simple walls and lines, low -slung and low-key. She said that the window styles of the addition and the existing home match and their placement is consistent, thereby presenting a cohesive appearance. Section H(3), Planner Hamer continued, also says that the proposal must value the existing visual character of the neighborhood and fit into its architectural context by using a compatible architectural vocabulary. This particular neighborhood contains a mixture of architectural styles, she said, with some homes built as early as 1924 and others as late as 1960. She pointed out, too,