HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200467 Skinner Residence Correspondance : ............ .
DLE eIT
19 Andrews Street Area Variance
SEP 24 2020
Narrative
By
During the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of 9/14, the Board expressed concern about -
proximity of the 2nd story addition to the Eastern border of the property and a concern about
the renovated home appearing overly large in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood.
In response to these concerns, we have narrowed the building as much as practical and now
propose that renovated building be 6 feet from the Eastern border of the property.
Substantially improved from the 5 feet requested on the 14th, modest improved from the
footprint of today but not quite to the 8 feet specified in UR-2. Please see the notes below
about why that extra distance is important to us.
Members of the Board suggested a number of modifications that we have carefully considered:
1) Relocate the garage to the rear of the property to take advantage of the alley access.
The garage as an out-building is a common feature in Saratoga Springs and several of
the homes in the neighborhood have this feature. However, the long narrow nature of
this lot results in the destruction of significant green space either with a driveway or
walkway plus the added footprint of an extra building. Not only would this destroy
value in the property, it would also result in the demolition of existing trees, shrubs and
perennials which would appear to be contrary to the best interest of the neighborhood.
Placing the garage adjacent to the home is the worst case scenario for the yard but the
only feasible scenario for our handicapped family member.
2) Eliminate the small patio in the center of the addition and pull the back of the home
towards the center of the lot. Several drafts of this change were contemplated and the
critical obstacles that could not be overcome were the elimination of natural light and
the fact that the kitchen elevation is fixed based on the original house elevation while
the entrance is 2 feet below the kitchen. The narrower home would not allow for ramps
• to accommodate wheelchair access for our family member.
3) Simply construct the addition in a conforming manner. While possible, this overly
burdensome option would result in serious alignment issues with the current structure
and an exceptionally narrow home that would have difficulty accommodating
wheelchairs or scooters required by family members. Further,this option appears
entirely unnecessary given the nature of the neighborhood. I refer the Board to
Appendix 1 attached hereto which indicates that our requested addition is fairly typical
of our neighborhood. The nature of our neighborhood is one of small homes, close
together. This is not something that we desire to change and the data would indicate
that we would not change it with this modified plan.
19 Andrews Street Area Variance
Appendix 1
Address Home (ft2) Out Levels Lot Size (ft2) Closest Side Max Height
Build
17 Andrews 1941 Y 2 7200 3 ft 18 ft
21 Andrews 1180 Y 2 7200 3 ft 23 ft
18 Andrews 1771 Y 2 5050 5 ft 22 ft
19 Andrews 1341 N 2 7200 0.8 ft 18 ft
(now)
19 Andrews 2245 N 2 7200 2 ft 22 ft
(new proposal)
20 Andrews 1560 Y 2 4040 2 ft 27 ft
22 Andrews 2239 Y 2 5050 2 ft 27 ft
24 Andrews Storage— N 2 12,500 3 ft 25 ft
8000
25 Andrews 840 Y 2 14,400 1 ft 20 ft
32 Andrews 2802 Y 2 7200 2 ft 30 ft
28 Andrews 2284 Y 2 6250 2 ft 30 ft
30 Andrews 1577 Y 2 6250 2 ft 30 ft