Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Board of Adjustments <br />The Board of Adjustments (BOA) reviewed the application at its October 28, 2025, regular meeting and <br />denied the variance request. The city code states that decisions by the Board to deny a variance shall not be <br />final and must be reviewed by the City Council in the same manner as an appeal of a decision by the Board. <br /> <br />The Board cited the following findings: <br />▪ Not maintaining adequate separation between structures for safety, access, neighborhood consistency, <br />and utility needs does not meet the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. <br />▪ The property is guided for residential uses, which includes decks, and the property is currently <br />improved with a home and deck that provide reasonable residential use. <br />▪ Expanding the deck can also be accomplished without requiring a variance, but expanding the <br />nonconformity is not necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. <br />▪ The lot configuration and existing house placement are not unique among properties in this <br />neighborhood. Many nearby homes have similar layouts and conforming decks within the required <br />setbacks. <br />▪ Enlarging the deck to encroach further into the setback could disrupt the established pattern of <br />separation between structures, potentially altering the visual and spatial character of the area. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br />The applicant spoke in support of their application, adding that the additional space would support family <br />gatherings and time outdoors. The BOA asked the applicant if they had spoken with the adjacent property <br />owner on the deck side. The applicant stated that they had, and that the neighbor expressed no concerns <br />regarding the request. However, the deck-side property owner later addressed the BOA and expressed <br />concerns about potential limitations to emergency vehicle access behind the home if the variance were <br />approved, as well as the possible impact a deck in proximity could have on the property’s resale value. For <br />clarification, the applicant had spoken with the renters of the property, not the owner. <br /> <br />Staff noted that the existing deck does not meet current setback requirements and is considered legal <br />nonconforming (grandfathered) and is located approximately one foot into the easement. The placement of <br />planters, the existing deck, and the neighboring property’s retaining wall already restrict access for emergency <br />vehicles. <br /> <br />Since the Board of Adjustments Meeting <br />Staff met with the applicant on site to discuss the site conditions that make it difficult to stay entirely within <br />the current setbacks. They pointed out the following: <br />▪ Existing spigot location: The spigot on the northeast side of the house limits how far the deck can be <br />shifted in that direction without significant utility modification. This is in response to a solution staff <br />suggested to the BOA. <br />▪ Fixed swing set: The swing set in the northwest corner of the parcel restricts usable space and <br />prevents shifting the deck footprint further west. <br />▪ Window load concerns: The two 8-foot windows on the northwest wall require the deck structure to <br />be positioned and supported in a way that avoids placing excessive load on the window framing, <br />limiting available placement options. Also, constructing the deck around the rear of the house would <br />utilize the minimal usable flat yard they have on site. <br /> <br />Staff have included several photographs of current site conditions, along with an exhibit provided by the <br />applicant illustrating these elements. The applicant also indicated that the deck reconstruction is being <br />pursued in part due to their plans to adopt a child. <br />Page 168 of 379