10A Action 2011 0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minutes June 2, 2011 Agenda No. 11-06 Page 4 of 8 that most of the homes in the area contain two stories. The home is set back approximately 70 feet from the sidewalk; the deep setback in combination with the low -slung design minimizes the impact on the neighborhood's visual character in terms of the streetscape. According to Section H(4), Planner Hamer noted that the addition should not substantially impair the privacy and access to light and air of adjacent residences, while balancing the applicant's ability to improve the subject property in accordance with all applicable restrictions. Planner Hamer reiterated that the proposal complies with all requirements, including the daylight plane requirement set out in Section 2-537. To address privacy concerns that Mr. and Mrs. Metaxas raised during the 10 -day comment period, the ZEO informed the applicant that the second -story windows facing the Metaxas property would have to be changed before building permits would be issued. Specifically, the ZEO said that these windows either 1) be re-designed/positioned upward or 2) if kept the same size and location, shown with the addition of opaque screening added to the bottom portion of each window. Planner Hamer also pointed out that the proposed roof will reach no higher than 21.5 feet, whereas regulations allow a maximum of 30 feet for a second story. To match the roof pitch with the existing first floor and to minimize massing, the applicant eliminated the attic area in the addition. Planner Hamer said the proposed height is about as low as a second -story addition could go. She asked that the BZA confirm the ZEO's site plan review approval and deny the appeal. Member Palma asked for a definition of "low -slung" and asked when the story poles were erected. Planner Hamer said that she found the term "low -slung" when researching Spanish Colonial bungalow style homes. The story poles went up about March 23, 2011. The letter went out to the appellant on March 24, but he came in before that, as soon as he saw the poles. The story poles remain up, as they will throughout the review process and appeal period. Member Mazzitti asked how opaque windows would open because privacy issues would remain if they open from the bottom. Planner Hamer said the applicant hasn't indicated what the proposal will be, but that issue will be addressed because privacy is the whole point of the change. Member Makin asked whether the proposed addition extends beyond the back wall of the appellant's house. ZEO Schock said that the appellant's structure is deeper than the proposed addition. Vice Chair Houston asked whether the detached garage at 908 Dowling Boulevard has always been located where it is now. Planner Hamer said yes. In response to Chair Daly, Planner Hamer confirmed that the maximum height permissible for a second story under the Zoning Code is 30 feet, and the applicant's proposal comes to 21.5 feet at the tallest point in the roof ridge. Both Planner Hamer and ZEO Schock said that the original application called for a slightly higher roof, still well under 30 feet, but the applicant subsequently reduced it. Chair Daly asked whether the second -story addition would cover the entire first floor. Planner Hamer explained that the second -story addition would encompass 355 square feet, in addition to the 335 square feet added to the first floor, so the total square footage of the second floor will be less than that on the first floor. The second -story addition, she added, will follow the line of the house along the west side, but will be narrower on the east side to remain far enough away from the garage. She then concluded that both the Building and Zoning Codes prohibit building within 6 feet of another structure. Chair Daly asked whether there was ever a suggestion to move the western wall line of the addition further east to accommodate the appellant's objections. Planner Hamer explained that