Laserfiche WebLink
r*f- <br />Zoning File #1689 <br />October 16, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />The construction in 1985 apparently never amounted to more than <br />an upper le-el deck, which was shown on a 1989 as-built survey of the <br />property. <br />Currently, the applicant proposes to replace the existing deck <br />with a fully enclosed three-season porch with a deck above it. Upon <br />staff review of the site, it was found that the driveway had reverted <br />from a previously tacitly approved gravel driveway to a bituminous <br />paved driveway, which is without question considered hardcover. <br />Pertinent Pacts <br />1.The existing house is 9.9' from the side lot line, and the <br />proposed three-season porch is proposed to maintain that <br />9.9' setback. <br />2.Hardcover existing on the property on 10/16/91 is 3882 s.f. <br />or 39.6% in the 75-250' zone. Hardcover orginally approved <br />for this property was 2280 s.f. or 25%. The original zoning <br />application does not include a sketch or diagram indicating <br />how 2280 s.f. was arrived at. 25% of the 75-250' zone is <br />currently calculated by staff at 2452 s.f. The difference <br />between the existing 39.6% and the 25% allowance is just <br />over 1400 s.f., an area equivalent to the paved driveway. <br />Discussion <br />This is certainly a case where ever-changing interpretations <br />regarding hardcover result in hardcover excesses over time. One can <br />argue that the house should never have been approved with the porous <br />pavement scheme, however, during the time period in which the permit <br />was issued, porous pavement was considered as an innovative way to <br />deal with hardcover. Some time after 1983, when it was found that <br />porous pavement was not a realistic solution for functional driveway <br />maintenance, the City quit allowing it as an alternative. In the <br />meantime, Sadlers' coarse gravel driveway was allowed to persist, <br />there being no reasonable alternative. <br />Applicant paved the driveway without the need for a permit. If <br />applicant asked the general question of anyone at the City "Do I need <br />a permit to pave my driveway," it is likely that he was told that no <br />permit is required but he has to stay within the confines of the <br />existing hardcovered driveway area, and if such a question was asked, <br />it is unlikely that anyone on staff related to the fact that this <br />specific gravel driveway was suppose to be "non-hardcover", because <br />in recent years, all gravel driveways have been considered as <br />hardcover.