Re: request to vary from covenants

Home Browse Search

June 16, 1993 Page 2 single driveway. Neither the declaration nor Resolution 2652 prohibits sidewalks. The staff is concerned that if only one driveway is permitted, and sidewalks are not specifically discussed, that they are prohibited because no grading is permitted in the 50-foot zone. The Figge's position is that due to the severe elevation change at the rear of their house, as contrasted to the relatively flat elevation from the front door of the house to the streAt, tr� topegrGphy is disti��t from ather lots in Sugarwoods. In addition, their house is relatively close to the street compared to other houses and other lots because their property falls off to the rear. Also, as a result of the topography falling off to the rear, there is relatively little space in the front of the house or at the side of the house outside the 50- foot restricted zone within which to put a driveway, parking area and pedestrian access to the house. When the houses in Sugarwoods are constructed in each instance some "grading" has to be done from the street to the house to install the sewer line. Such is the case with regard to the Figge residence as well. Thus, the city understands that not all grading is prohibited within the 50-foot restricted zone. In addition, when the grading was done for the installation of the sanitary sewer line no large trees were removed. No large trees will be removed to install the sidewalk. The sidewalk will be over the sanitary sewer line where grading has already occurred. The declaration does not prohibit sidewalks. In fact, it mentions them at Article IX, Section 16 (e) as counting (appropriately) as hardcover, or "Covered Area" . The Figge's Covered Area at 60.7� is well below the maximum permitted of 80%. Presumably the prohibition against "grading" is intended to prevent substantial earth additions, subtractions or movement within the 50-foot zone which would alter the land and thus take away from the naturally occurring elevations and topography, the variety of which is one of the esthetic elements in Sugarwoods being protected. In fact, no "grading" is needed to install the sidewalk. It lays on the existing elevations following the slope of the land, so the sidewalk does not contravene the purposes of the "no grading" rule. The Figge' s believe that it is reasonable given the topography of their lot which falls off steeply to the rear, and the consequent relatively small size of their actual usable lot area and the restriction it therefore places on the size and extent of their driveway and parking area, and in view of the fact that their house is relatively close to the street and there