Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />MARCH 18, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />The referenced Rock Wall is clearly on the subject property and was in <br /> <br /> <br />place prior to either property owner purchasing their respective property. <br />Statement in the conclusion references the fact that Mr. Simpson must <br /> <br /> <br />nd <br />close the blinds to their home when the 2 story deck is being used by the <br />Smith’s. Smith commented that they never see the blinds open in the <br />Simpson home. <br />B. Smith thanked the City Staff for their acknowledgement that the Smith’s have been <br />forthright to resolve the matter of the non-compliant deck. He stated it is his desire to <br />resolve the problem. He demonstrated with a 7’ length of board the amount of variance <br />that is being requested. <br />K. Smith continued with a review by using the edited version of the City’s Staff Report <br />and discussed each of the highlighted section with a rebuttal. <br />Loeblich asked if the document had been shared with staff. <br />K. Smith replied it was being shared through this process. <br />McMillan confirmed that staff had a copy. <br />Malmquist had several questions regarding the two tables distributed by the Smiths. <br />1) Table 1 – What does the setback mean? <br />2) Table 2 – How and from where was it measured? Does the table suggest <br />possible setback violations in the subdivision? <br />B. Smith reviewed Table 1 and Table 2. <br />K. Smith reviewed the history of the home, the theory used by Merit Homes when <br />locating the home on the lot. <br />Stuart requested a discussion by staff of the difference between Easement and <br />Setback. <br />McCartney explained the difference and explained that in this case the easement is <br />within the setback. <br />Chancellor clarified that the consideration for the variance is for the setback only of the <br />covered deck and is NOT for the encroachment of the Play Structure into the easement. <br />B. Smith continued with a discussion of the modified staff report that contained his <br />rebuttal to the following points within the report: <br />page 2 – Deck height <br /> <br /> <br />page 2 – Year the deck was built <br /> <br /> <br />page 3 – stair encroachment and no utilities located in the easement <br /> <br /> <br />page 3 – discuss of purpose of Table 1 as it relates to criteria #1 <br /> <br /> <br />page 4 – discuss of Table 2 as it relates to criteria #2 <br /> <br /> <br />page 4 – discuss of 2009 ILC and percent of homes in Cherrywood that <br /> <br /> <br />already have decks <br />page 5 – discussion of house placement by developer at it relates to <br /> <br /> <br />criteria #4 <br />page 5 – discussion of deck not being enclosed, only covered <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />