Board of Adjustment Minutes 2007 04 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 3 of 6 of an aerial view of the area, staff does not believe that these circumstances exist throughout the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 3) Property cannot reasonably be developed - The location of the home on the site prohibits the property from being remodeled without a variance request. If the house had been located at the 25 foot front setback then a 10 foot deck would have been located 33 feet from the rear property line and would have complied with the setback requirement. Staff finds the criterion has been met. 4) Hardship has not been created by the applicant - The home was constructed in 1985 and the current owner is not the original owner thus the applicant did not create the hardship. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5) Essential character of neighborhood will not be altered - The expansion of the deck will not encroach any further toward the street and it will not be noticed from West Cedar Place. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6) Minimum variance that will afford relief - The intent to continue the line of the existing deck and to have a similar rear yard setback as what exists now. Staff finds that represents a minimization of the request for relief from the zoning requirements. Staff finds this criterion has been met. Staff stated that all six (6) of the criteria have been met and recommends approval of the variance request, with the following condition: 1) Prior to construction of the new deck, the applicant shall receive an inspection of the existing deck to insure it is structurally safe. Questions of Staff bv the Board and Applicant: Cordell discussed with staff the original building plans and if they included a deck and if there were any documents that discussed the reason for the additional front yard setback. McCartney stated the original plans did include the deck as it is currently located and staff did not find information as to why the home had been located on the lot with the increased front setback. Chancellor requested a clarification of the one condition recommended by staff. McCartney stated the Building Division requested the condition. If the variance is approved and when the applicant applies for a permit for the additional deck, then the Building Division will request the inspection. It was the feeling of staff that is was best to get the inspection requirement noted early in the review process. The inspection would be done by an independent inspector and modifications to the deck would only be required if it has been noted by the inspector in their report. Loeblich inquired about the possibility of a ground level deck. McCartney stated it had been discussed with the applicant prior to the submittal for the variance. However, staff and the applicant concluded that it was not a good alterative. Loeblich and McCartney discussed several concerns that Horst had related to the setbacks (front, rear and side) of other homes in the neighborhood.