Laserfiche WebLink
•* <br />Zoning File #1636 <br />April 11, 1991 <br />Page 3 of <br />Review Exhibits D and 0, in 1985 the City granted lot area <br />and lot width variances to this property and the property to the <br />immediate north. The purpose was to allow the owner to sell the <br />lot to the north for residential development. Development was to <br />be based on specific guidelines set forth in the approval <br />resolutions. DeveJopment of the subject property was spelled out <br />in Resolution 1718-B (Exhibit D). In 1986, a year after the <br />original variance approval, the City granted hardcover variances <br />to the lot to the north because the current owner then claimed <br />practical hardships with being required to install a driveway <br />with the porous block. In order to allow a driveway with an <br />appropriate backout apron, the property was approved at 35% <br />hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Review the findings <br />and hardships noted in th^t resolution. <br />The applicant has asked the same consideration as porous <br />blocks are not practical in this climate and create even more <br />problems for homeowners in the maintenance and upkeep. The paved <br />drive at 2,809.85 s.f. results in 20.8% of hardcover within the <br />75-250' setback area. <br />Issues for Consideration - <br />^• The side setback variance for the street, side deck <br />located 3.1* from north side lot line. . <br />Resolution #1718-B states as follows: <br />"Any extension westerly of the north wall of the <br />existing house must meet the 10' side yard setback. <br />The deck does not result in the extension of the wall of the <br />foundation of the principal structure. What was the intent <br />of this condition? <br />In 1985 a grade-level deck would have been allowed 2' from a <br />side lot line. Staff no longer considers decks with <br />railings as non-encroachments but as part of the principal <br />structure required to meet all setbacks of the principal <br />structure. The deck would now have to meet a 10' setback. <br />The deck was constructed some time in 1985-86. Applicant <br />contends that based on the location of the current entrance <br />and entrance to the addition on the south side, that the <br />connecting deck made functional sense and a positive <br />aesthetic benefit to the structure. <br />Vi <br />m-m <br />mn-rtif Tii MliiM