CCMIN071889 - Laserfiche WebLink

155 be for his protection so that should he decide to sell the property, the next buyer would not be able to get back at him. Mr. Brandes added that as far as the City is concerned, this is the end of the case. However, any citizen can challenge the decision made in court. It was then moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt Resolution No. 89-317, requiring Mr. Lawson to come back and take out all the appropriate permits and that his property be built according to code. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 6e AP-89-10, Appeal of a decision of the Board of Adjustment approving Case V-89-9, the application of Andrew Valdez for a variance from the Municipal Code to allow the retention of an existing deck structure/spa and shed which encroaches into the required rear yard setback located at 906 Crellin Road Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:332) regarding this matter. Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application. Ms. Ilse Dawe, 880 Crellin Road, stated that Mr. Valdez has a 2-ft. lattice on top of a 6-ft fence that comes too close to her property and would lower her property value. She requested that the roof of the shed be lowered to the existing fence height. She also inquired if the case could be reopened should Mr. Valdez be granted the variance. Mr. Robert Sinz, 3374 Muscat Court, the backfence neighbor of Mr. Valdez, mentioned that he was told that there was little chance that the Board of Adjustment would overrule the staff report recommending that Mr. Valdez be required to bring the deck into complaince with the code. However, Mr. Valdez was granted the variance. He noted that as a condition of variance, Mr. Valdez was asked to submit plans for the addition to the fence so the permit could be issued; these plans have not been submitted. Mr. Valdez was also barred from building any additional structures in his backyard as an additional condition of the variance. However, Mr. Valdez' letter of July 13 indicated that he reserves the right to appeal that condition of the variance. Mr. Sinz said that if he were given an assurance that Mr. Valdez would not be allowed to build any additional structures or modify any existing structures which may have adverse effects of his privacy or property value, he would withdraw his appeal. -11-