ITEM08 C15-2022-0061 PRESENTATION 12-12-22 — original pdf

Backup

Variance Reconsideration Request 1401 E 3rd St C15-2022-0061 The Board of Adjustment December 12, 2022 Item __ Cort Chalfant (Nexus Series B, LLC, Owner) ITEM08/1--PRESENTATIONOverview Seeking a reconsideration of the specific language in the motion that led to the 9-0 unanimous approval of our side yard variance request at the BOA meeting of 11/14/22. ITEM08/2--PRESENTATIONYou may recall… This is what we propose to demolish/replace. ITEM08/3--PRESENTATION…this is what we propose to replace it with. • Unit A: 2/2.5 • Unit B: Total: 1/1 1,650 sf 650 sf 2,300 / 4,967 sf site 2 cars parking on-site 1 car parking on-site 46.3% FAR ITEM08/4--PRESENTATIONThe Motion Motion by Board member Von Ohlen was to approve, which carried unanimously. However: • He asked if we would stipulate to build as presented (subject to minor alterations). I agreed. No problem. • He asked if we would stick to the 40% FAR “as provided by the Code”. I said “this is a question best answered by the architect”. The architect was an approved speaker and responded on the phone but couldn’t be heard. • Since attendees heard nothing and we didn’t know to clarify the Code, we all moved on and the motion carried. ITEM08/5--PRESENTATIONThe Code Subchapter F, Article 2.1 reads “MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED: The maximum amount of development permitted on a property subject to this Subchapter is limited to the greater of 0.4 to 1.0 floor-to-area ratio or 2,300 square feet of gross floor area…”. In the vast majority of cases, a developer has a lot with sufficient area such that the 40% FAR value governs. I believe Board Member Von Olen defaulted to this value in his motion rather than consciously supersede what the Code otherwise permits. In small lot cases, the 2,300 sq. ft. cap supersedes the 40% FAR value. In our case, the lot is only 4,967 sq. ft. in size. 40% of this value = 1,987 sq. ft. but under the Code we are permitted by right to build 2,300 sq. ft. ITEM08/6--PRESENTATIONThe Problem (Hardship Unique to the Property)  The first stipulation in the approved motion requires that we build as presented (2,300 sq. ft.)  The second stipulation [inadvertently?] imposes a 40% FAR cap (1,987 sq. ft.) We can’t meet both stipulations at the same time. One or the other has to give. ITEM08/7--PRESENTATIONProposed:  Make a new motion identical to the first but without language that supersedes Subchapter F, Article 2.1 of the Code.  We will continue to stipulate that we will build as presented (subject to only minor alterations). ITEM08/8--PRESENTATION