Loading...
1985 06 03BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 3, 1985 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Willard Johnson, Dale Geving and Carol Watson. STAFF PRESENT Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 96 SHASTA CIRCLE EAST, THERESA ESTREM, APPLICANT Olsen gave a brief overview of the variance request. She stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 14' x 42' deck on the eastern side of their existing single family residence. The home is located in the Near Mountain Subdivision. Near Mountain has alter- nate side yard setbacks of 5' and 10'. The 5' side yard setback is on the garage side of the home and the 10' side yard setback is on the opposite side of the home. The lot is located on the northeast corner of Shasta Circle East and Castle Ridge. The home faces Shasta Circle East with the garage on the west side. Therefore, the setback on the east side, .where the ~ - deck is proposed, is 10 feet. The home to the east also has the 10 foot side yard setback on the side facing the applicant's home. The home is 22 feet from the side yard lot line. The proposed deck is a width of 14 feet and reaches 2 feet into the 10 foot setback (8 feet from the side yard lot line). There is no existing vegetation between the proposed deck and the home to the east to screen the deck. But, such a buffer would not be necessary since there are no windows on that side of the neighbor's home. The deck would have to be reduced from a 14 foot width to a 12 foot width to meet the setbacks. Unless there is a specific need for the deck to be 14 feet wide, staff is recommending that the 10 foot set- back be met. Tom Kollman asked Olsen to explain setbacks. Olsen stated there is a 5 foot setback on the side of garages and a 10 foot setback on the side of the home with always a total of 15 feet in the Near Mountain Subdivision. Dick York wanted to know if this would set a precedence. Geving stated that each case is looked at separately. Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 3, 1985 Page 2 York asked if the neighbors' have any input. Geving stated they listen to all comments. Watson stated that each case is looked at individually to see if it conflicts with neighbors. She also stated that this case shows the problem with small lots, everybody needs variances. Geving stated the deck on this case is a convenience rather than a hardship. He stated that the applicant could build a 12 foot wide deck and stay within code. But since the applicant wants an all season porch - a 14 foot width makes more sense. Watson stated she understood the need for a 14 foot wide deck. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to approve a two foot variance for an 8 foot side yard setback with no conditions. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Geving to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Geving to approve the May 20, 1985 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Geving to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.