02228V-62-79 M. H. ASSOCIATES INC. - Variance to allow projections into front and side
yard set accs at 528 Dayton St. (RMH)
Mr. Pearson said this application was for a variance to allow chimneys and
decks to project into setbacks, with three units being involved. The
projections would go out as far as the eaves overhanging the roof. An
earlier variance had been granted to allow three units on the property
instead of two and the lot is somewhat undersized and narrow for a typical
lot in the RMH district. He recommended approval because he felt it would
not be detrimental to the neighbors on either side, inasmuch as the chimney
projections would be under the roof overhang and the decks would be only
slightly beyond the overhang. The chimneys would not extend all the way to
the ground. The.public portion of the hearing was opened.. Curt Thomson,
attorney representing the applicant, displayed elevations for the project.
He said that on the north elevation the side stairway would project 42"
into the setback and a chimney will project 32" into the front setback.
Also small decks off the living rooms will project 3' beyond the face of
the building. On the west elevation two chimneys will project 32" into the
setback and one deck will project into the side yard setback. The west
elevation would be seen from a multi -residential structure and the east
elevation would be seen by a single family residence. Mr. Thomson said the
ADB had approved the design, this being a three -unit structure, two units
having 1,100 sq. ft. of living area and the third having 1,500 sq. ft.
They are oriented to the Sound view, and Mr. Thomson said the decks add
lines of the design. He felt the design was compatible with others in the
area. He said these variances would not be detrimental to the public and
that this design was the most realistic and logical from the applicant's
point of view. He noted that the chimneys would not extend to the bottom
so they did leave some open space which they might occupy if designed
dif!erently. The elevations displayed were submitted as Exhibit 1. The
public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Byrd noted•that this
was a pleasing design, but it did not appear that there were any special
conditions or circumstances to warrant the variance, and the property owner
would not be deprived of rights of others in the neighborhood if this were
denied. Further, that any conditions were the result of the owner's actions
in designing the building this way. The only difficulties he could see
would be redesign. He agreed that the variance would not be detrimental to
the area, except to the extent that they would be building upon every
possible inch of this lot. He said it was a minimum variance and the
design appeared to be good, but that was not in the Board's area of. decision.
MR. "'BYRD THEN.;MOVED.TO DENY V-62-79. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTION:'
Mrs. Medina asked what would happen there in the future when the "next lot
was proposed for construction, and she felt to approve this would be setting
an improper precedent. Mrs. Derleth noted that the proposal already had a
variance on the square footage, and that the City recently had eliminated
the bonus density, so she felt these were indications that this lot was
being overbuilt. She noted that the stairway on one side and the fireplace
on the other.give the appearance of widening the building. She felt the
project was architecturally attractive and she liked the idea that it was
stepped up the hill. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MR:
BYRD'AND MRS. MEDINA VOTING YES, AND WITH MR ROY, MRS. DERLETH, AND MR.
HATZENBUHLER VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mrs. Derleth said she did not
like to see the proposal turned down because it was attractive. She asked
if the applicants would be willing to do some redesign that would not call
for so many variances. Mr. Roy noted that if this were granted it would
set a precendent and every lot to the east would-be a potential triplex.
He was not opposed to the chimneys but he was opoosed to the stairs. Mr.
Byrd added that a building could be designed to meet the Building Code.
The public portion of the hearing was reopened. The architect for the
project said if the stairwell were put within the building one inside
parking stall would be lost. Mr. Thomson said it would not be as much of
a problem to pull in the decks. There were some expressions of concern by
the Board regarding the deck extensions as well. Philip Escandon of 940
Daley said a variance had been given to put a triplex on duplex property
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 6 - September 19, 1979