Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minutes June 2, 2011 <br />Agenda No. 11-06 Page 6 of 8 <br />surface between the story poles on the west side of the applicant's property to show the impact on <br />his property. He said that the shading from the proposed two-story addition will cover his <br />backyard in December all the way to the back fence. <br />As an architect, he continued, he came up with an alternative design that involves a single -story <br />addition of a family room, plus another 350 square feet for a master bedroom and bathroom <br />above. He said that the alternative, which he would be proud of as an architect, complies with <br />residential site plan review standards, respects his privacy and preserves his sunlight while also <br />giving the applicant a design he wants by linking the family room to the existing kitchen and the <br />backyard. <br />Member Thomas asked about the appellant's claim regarding the negative impact from the <br />neighbor's addition on his property value because the [real estate broker] letters submitted <br />provide no statistical information. Mr. Allen replied that the information is anecdotal at this point, <br />but they project a loss of value in the range of $40,000 to $60,000 due to the loss of privacy. <br />There hasn't been time to have an appraisal done in the before -and -after circumstances, Mr. Allen <br />said, but the appellant would be happy to obtain such an appraisal if that would facilitate the <br />Board's evaluation of the project. <br />Member Mendieta, referring to Mr. Metaxas's alternate design, asked if it factored in stairways. <br />Mr. Metaxas said that his alternative contains the same square footage as the applicant's proposal <br />and has the same exterior wall elevations, and stairways would be easily workable within that. <br />Member Mendieta asked whether Mr. Metaxas could estimate the additional cost involved in his <br />proposed alternate design. In response, Mr. Metaxas referred to a letter in the BZA packets from a <br />structural engineer, who addressed the issue of adding a second story above an existing older <br />single -story house. He said that additional expense would be involved in strengthening the <br />existing foundation and building shear walls within the area of the existing structure to support <br />the new loads on the second floor above. He said this isn't high-tech construction, it's quite <br />common, and most building contractors know how to do that work. <br />Jim McGrath, applicant, came forward to make his presentation, expressed support of the staff <br />recommendation, and introduced his family in attendance. He said that it is important to note that <br />the home's footprint is 1,074 square feet; if it were the 1,250 square feet mentioned earlier, there <br />would be less urgency about building the proposed addition. He said that all of the Garcias [his <br />son-in-law, daughter and their children] currently live in a two-bedroom house, including one son <br />with physical disabilities. So that his mother can watch over him and his siblings, Mr. McGrath <br />said the addition was designed with a family room that extends two feet into the back yard, but <br />leaves room for play. <br />According to his builder, Mr. McGrath said, it would cost at least $30,000 more in foundation and <br />structural work to add a second story on top under one of Mr. Metaxas's alternatives, but in <br />addition, the house would be uninhabitable during at least a four-month construction period. <br />Mr. McGrath said that the appellant seems to expect a mandated negotiation to produce another <br />design, when what they have a right to expect is compliance with what the Zoning Code requires. <br />He also showed photos of homes in the neighborhood including heights of walls, spacing between <br />homes, and roof lines. In addition, Mr. McGrath pointed out that second -story windows must be <br />large enough to provide emergency exits. He said that taller slip windows might meet that <br />requirement as well as help address the privacy issue. <br />Member Makin, recalling BZA deliberations on a previous and similar situation, said that the <br />City has a professional staff who know the code and the ordinances and have approved the <br />application after reviewing the requirements. He defers to their judgment and doesn't want to be <br />in a position of picking and choosing who gets to build an addition on their home. He said that <br />