Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Zoning File #1664 <br />July 9, 1991 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />P.'imary Issues to Consider ~ <br />1.Is there sufficient hardship presented to justify the <br />granting of requested variances? <br />2.Can the proposal be revised to decrease or eliirlnate the <br />need for one or more of the requested variances? <br />Pertinent Pacts - <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />In 1990 applicant determined to add a second story addition <br />to this existing residence. After discussions with staff <br />and Council, applicant revised his addition to be directly <br />above the existing house structure, off-set to meet the <br />required 10' side setback. In conjunction with that <br />addition, he intended to remove a 8'x20' pre-existing screen <br />porch that encroached the average setback, but leave the <br />floor in place as an open deck. <br />Applicant was advised on the approved plan survey that the <br />superstructure of the screen porch could be removed but that <br />the 8'x20' deck would have to remain in order to avoid a <br />variance. <br />After the second story addition was essentially complete, <br />applicant determined that the 8'x20' porch floor was in too <br />poor a condition to keep, and he removed it but left the <br />adjacent stairway. Upon application for a permit to <br />replace the 8'x20' deck, applicant was advised again of the <br />need for variances. <br />The original site plan approved with the second story <br />building permit contained 32.9% existing 75-250' hardcover <br />with no changes proposed. Since the completion of the <br />addition, applicant has removed areas of sidewalk and added <br />a 10'xl4' gravel parking pad to allow a second car to be <br />stored off-street. Although applicant has noted to staff <br />that sidewalks will probably be eliminated or minimized, <br />staff has included 44 s.f. of landing and sidewalk which <br />actually increases hardcover to 33.4% as opposed to 32.9% <br />pre-existing. It seems likely that with revisions in the <br />deck or its access stairway, hardcover could easily be held <br />to the pre-existing 32.9% level. <br />The deck to be replaced will remain the same side setback <br />from the lot line as the pre-existing deck/screen porch. <br />Compared to the proposed deck with railing at the first <br />floor level, the pre-existing screened porch probably could <br />be viewed as a more intense average setback encroachment <br />than this deck.