Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2022 09 21

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 17, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Public Comment Bill Packer, 951 Sunflower St Packer mentions that his house has burned down and will be rebuilding. His home is his primary residence. He notes that the applicant's house is not his primary residence but a rental. Because of his location, his house will be the most impacted if this variance is approved. Because of the elevations, the applicant's lot is higher than his is. The deck before was located where it could see into bedrooms of his home. Privacy is the major concern for him. In their original home, they had a large, mature maple tree that provided privacy from the deck. He asks that if the variance is approved, the encroachment would move towards the front so that there is less impact to neighboring properties. Tucker Katz, 932 Sunflower St Katz says he is not in favor of this application and speaks on the six criteria. Criteria One: It is not unique because there is still the availability to build the deck on the southwest corner of the property. Criteria Three: Based on the survey, you can clearly see that the deck can be built on the southwest corner without invading the setback. Criteria Five: This deck would have a great impact on the neighboring homes. The homes sitting at a lower elevation will not have privacy. Criteria Six: This home could move more forward and there is no evidence that the sloping of the lot would make that impossible. Summary and Request by Staff and Applicant: Hawksley asks the applicant if he considered putting the deck on the southwest corner. Firnhaber says the footers on the house were poured about a week and a half ago. It does not include an extended deck. The placement of the house is fixed. Because of costs, we wanted to use the same floor plan and construction plans as before. The house has had a small deck off the southwest corner and we intend to build a deck there. The previous deck had transparent vertical rails but we will be building a solid railing, which would help with some of the visible concerns. Hawksley asks if he considered rotating the siding of the house. Firnhaber says they did not start the building permit process understanding that was a challenge since they wanted to build back with the same deck. Because of that, they did not consider encroaching on the front setback. Ritchie adds that as part of the Marshall Fire recovery, we are offering a 10% administrative variance. They have been approved for this. This is the greatest relief staff can offer administratively. Firnhaber asks if there has been a 10% encroachment that has been approved administratively. Ritchie says that is correct. She shares the building permit's approved plans with the board. Nakari asks what the difference is between the approved dimensions and what is being proposed through the variance request. Firnhaber says the depth difference is six feet.