Um the first item on your agenda here is a uh setback variance um at 4246 Creekide Way. Um this is for a um a deck that is kind of in in construction. There was some work on a retaining wall um that prompted some repairs to the footings and then as we went through the process figured out that the previous deck permit that we issued the footings had been inspected but nothing done beyond that. So um upon looking at that um it was determined there was about a 6 in encroachment into the rear setback.

Um so the worths are the owners of the property located at 4246 Creek Sideway. And uh like Mr. Wilson said, they're request is is narrow. They're seeking a rear yard setback variance um to reduce the required setback by uh six inches. So from 20 feet to 19 and a half feet. Um Mr. Olson gave, you know, somewhat of a rundown of of what was going on. So, I won't rehash everything he he set forth, but um in terms of whether the uh situation was intentional, whether the setback was intentionally encroached or it was created inadvertently. Um the words understand the city's concern and they're not trying to avoid that issue whatsoever, but the the history of the construction here really does matter. So, the the footing locations were approved on May 5, 2021, and the contractor put the posts in the middle of the approved footing locations, and then the beam and the deck were placed above the posts, and they didn't they didn't place them any further over the posts than were where the posts were exactly located.

Yeah, me too. I um I know that we have to consider all three pieces because we need to be good stewards of the cities, but I do feel like the property owner um obviously is using the property in a reasonable ma reasonable manner. So that that's kind of a no-brainer. And then um with this explanation, it does make sense to me that the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances um that were created by them. It seems like the contractor might have made a mistake here. And now to correct, it seems unreasonable and it and the neighbors are all in support. So I think we're all all three are covered.

Um the second public hearing on your agenda is another variance. Um it's from the repairarian viewshed setback um at 960 Maplerest Drive. Um the applicants are seeking to cons, you know, uh construct a new deck. There's an existing deck there. They're going to take it off and replace it with a larger deck. Um it does extend past the line of sight setback. Um hence why we are here uh this evening. Um again looking at your staff report um outline the same variance criteria. Um this one seems a little more um straightforward as well um in terms of the the variance criteria um and feel that um this does satisfy all the variance criteria as outlined in your staff report.

Hi, I'm Natalie Quinn and I live at 960 Maplerrest Drive. I am the one that is requesting um for this variance to replace our existing deck and just make it more functional. When we bought the house, um we didn't understand why it was built that way. It's very hard to navigate from east to west. Um, and we've been there now for like 5 years and we really don't even use the deck because of the fact that it's hard to get from side to side. There's 22 ines um on the south side and you kind of got to have you walk sideways and then on the corners there's only 13 in to get around. So, it's like really hard to even like move plants or any furniture to get them up on the deck.

How does that work? If if the a deck could be a variance issue because of you can see it from a line of sight. Why would trees I mean blocking a view essentially if you're trying to maybe block a lake view or I don't what is the is it just because it's in line of sight to see a deck or is it because it's obstructing a different type of view.