Board of Adjustment Minutes 2007 04 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Loeblich expressed concern that the Board was setting a precedent of allowing structures into setbacks. McCartney briefly reviewed some previous cases and explained the intent is to prove physical hardship. Kelly asked why staff had not used the argument of access during the review of the six (6) criteria. McCartney stated that he did not repeat what the applicant had stated but the board should use both the information from the applicant and staff to determine the reason for approval. Applicant Presentation: Kelly Gratz, 563 W. Cedar Place stated he had no additional comments. He thanked staff for the time they had spent together preparing for the submittal and hearing. Questions of Applicant bv Board and Staff: Chancellor and Cordell discussed a deck at ground level and the slope away from the home that would make the deck less desirable. Loeblich asked Gratz if he had discussed the deck addition with his neighbors. Gratz stated he had visited with the neighbors to each side and they were okay. He asked the board if they needed something in writing from those neighbors because he was willing to obtain it if it meant approval. Loeblich discussed with Gratz the following topics: a ground level deck, deck on the second floor and the placement of the home on the lot is not recognized as a hardship. Gratz answered each of Loeblich's questions. Loeblich proposed the applicant present a stronger argument for hardship by presenting a measurement of the front setback for 30 of the closest properties. Chancellor stated his concern with that request and the fact there is nothing in the application material that requires the applicant to present additional information. Chancellor and Kelly expressed opposition to Loeblich's request for additional information. Loeblich stated he needed that additional information to make a decision. Chancellor stated that Loeblich's request implied that they ignore the staff report. Chancellor addressed what he felt was the number one concern as being the closeness to the bike path. McCartney asked if the board was interested in a continuance to allow the applicant and staff additional time to address the hardship criteria. Cordell stated he would be able to vote that all six (6) criteria have been met. Chancellor asked Gratz about the distance from the path to the deck of his home and the distance between the path and the house of the neighbor.