Loading...
1985 06 17BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 17, 1985 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRES ENT Willard Johnson, Dale Geving and Carol Watson. STAFF PRESENT Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 93 SHASTA CIRCLE EAST, EVIE CARLSON, APPLICANT Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 14' x 18' (western section) - 12' x 12' (eastern section) deck on the rear of her home. The home is 40 feet from the rear yard lot line and is required to have at least 30 feet between the lot line and structure. She stated that the deck will extend 19 feet from the rear of the home, which would be only 21 feet from the rear lot line. Therefore, a 9 foot variance is required. Watson stated she agreed with staff's decision and that they would be granting a convenience and that they must follow the definitions of a variance. She stated that small lots don't allow expansion and that the buyer should be aware of this. Carlson stated the deck was designed to keep her rear windows clear and for aesthetics to follow the lay of the land. Geving asked Carlson if there would be a hardship on her if the variance was denied. Carlson stated she wanted the deck as proposed and felt it benefited the neighborhood. Johnson stated he has mixed feelings. Geving stated he could see extending the deck 14 feet, but keep it all 14 feet, instead of having a 9 foot variance it would be a 5 foot variance. Watson stated that a 5 foot variance will give room for an 18 foot deck. It is hard to find it as a hardship, it is a small lot and must not expect to expand. Geving moved, seconded by Johnson to grant a 5 foot variance to the required 30 foot rear yard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 17, 1985 Page 2 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 513 CHAN VIEW, JOHN HAVLIK, APPLICANT Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to build a deck onto the rear and side of his home. The patio will be approximately 12' x 26' and 8 inches off the ground. She noted that there is an existing 6 foot high wood fence along the northern and eastern border of the property. This fence is 1.5 feet from the side yard lot line. The applicant is proposing to construct the deck up to this fence. Therefore, the deck would be 1.5 feet away from the side lot line and require an 8.5 foot variance. She stated the home is 10 feet away from the lot line and meets the required setbacks. For the deck to meet the 10 foot setback, it would have to go only as far as the home. This would make the deck 12' x 17.5'. She stated that although the deck will be screened by the fence, staff is recommending that the side yard setback be met. Should the fence ever be removed, the 20 foot separation between struc- tures would still be maintained which is the intent of the ordi- nance. The applicant can build a deck to meet the setback requirement. Watson stated she likes 20 feet between structures. Havlik stated there were no complaints from the neighbors. The fence has been there for years and will remain there. He stated that 10 feet is awful small for a deck. Geving stated the pato is essentially to the fence now. Watson stated a more permanent structure would be built with the deck. Watson stated it would be 1.5 feet from the lot line. Geving stated the patio is already there and no neighbors have objected. Watson stated it comes down to how much structure is a deck and the fence is some protection. If this were a garage it would not be approved. Geving moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the variance with the condition that if the fence is removed, the deck will have to be moved back to meet the 10 foot setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 17, 1985 Page 3 FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 6800 RINGO DRIVE, TOM DIETHELM, APPLICANT Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to build a 26' x 60' single family residence on a 10,000 square foot lot. The lot is located at the corner of Ringo Drive and Cree Road. Since it is a corner lot, it is required to have the 30 foot front yard set- backs on both street frontages. She noted the site plan shows the location of the home on the lot. The house will be facing Cree Drive and meets the required 30 foot setback. The house will also be fronting on Ringo Drive and only has a 17.3 foot setback. Therefore, a 12.7 foot variance is required to meet the front yard setback of 30 foot. She stated that since the house is facing Cree Drive, the rear yard is the opposite side of the lot. The site plan shows a 23.1 foot setback for the rear yard. A 6.9 foot variance is needed from the 30 foot year yard requirement. The side yard setback of 10 feet has been maintained. She stated that because of the lots' odd configuration, the buildable area imposes severe restrictions for construction of a home and two car garage. The Zoning Ordinance is imposing a hardship. Denying the variance would deny reasonable use of the property. The proposed home is well screened from surrounding properties and is maintaining the primary front yard setback and side yard setbacks. The requested variances are the minimum variances needed. Adequate separation from the street and adja- cent lots would be maintained. Geving made a motion to approve the request. ? asked how they are approving this. It is an undersized lot. Ringo Road is not just a driveway, it's a street. Geving stated this is a buildable lot which means it is as least 7,500 square feet and we cannot deny a reasonable use of the property. Watson stated 10,000 square feet is an adequate size. Watson moved, seconded by Geving to approve the variances with no conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Watson moved seconded by Geving to approve the June 3, 1985 minu- tes as written. Watson moved, seconded by Geving to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Prepared by Jo Ann Olsen 6-27-85