Board denies variance for dual front stair design at new Fourth Palm Point home

The Board of Adjustment denied a practical-difficulty variance for a proposed elevated front entry with a split (dual) staircase at 6406 Fourth Palm Point, finding the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the extent of relief requested was necessary for a new dwelling.

Senior planner Kristin Coleman presented the application by Daniel and Janice Bowfinger for a new single-family dwelling on a pie-shaped cul-de-sac lot in the RU-1 zone. The applicants proposed a front-yard setback of 12 feet for the stair landing where 17 feet is required (relief sought under LDC section 6.22(b)). Coleman said the proposed dwelling footprint otherwise met principal-dwelling setbacks; the relief sought was specific to an open, elevated front entry staircase and its landing.

Applicant Dan Bowfinger described the lot’s narrow pie-shaped front, the owners’ desire for an aging-in-place layout and a coastal aesthetic, and design efforts to move the home and reconfigure porches and landings. Bowfinger said interior configurations that would avoid exterior stairs or fit stairs within the existing envelope would require sacrificing substantial exterior deck space or creating unsafe conditions (a recessed first step that the owner considered a trip hazard) and that they had evaluated alternatives including shifting the house and varying porch depths.

Board members probed other options: a single-side stair, a straight run instead of a split stair, curved stairs and reducing porch depth. Staff and the applicant acknowledged some of those alternatives could reduce the magnitude of encroachment, and staff asked the applicant to present evidence of alternatives considered because this was new construction rather than simple replacement.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance on the basis that, for new construction, the applicant had not demonstrated minimum necessary relief; the motion to deny passed unanimously. Several members said they were sympathetic to the pie-shaped lot and the owners’ goals, but because other feasible configurations appeared to exist that would reduce or eliminate the encroachment on the front setback, approval for this degree of exterior staircase relief was not supported for new construction.

The denial leaves the applicant the option to revise the design and return with a reduced encroachment (for example, a single flight or a revised landing) or to pursue other permitted design approaches to meet setback requirements for new dwellings.