Laserfiche WebLink
X4S549I <br />S <br />■ij <br />t. ■ <br />Application Date: 8/21/00 <br />Deadline: 12/19/00 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: October 4,2000 <br />ITEM NO.: ^ <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Paul Weinberger <br />Title Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description:ii2610 Jerome J. Hail <br />80 Leaf Street <br />After-the-Fact Variances <br />Zoning Dbtrict: <br />Lot Area: <br />List of Exhibits: <br />RR*1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) <br />36,625 s.f. (0.84 acre) <br />Vote 4-0 +0 ra'^orn <br />+lv4. PlAv\M>net <br />\S& I0W. <br />Oc+ober 2eco <br />A Site Plan <br />B Revised Plan <br />C Planning Commission Minutes (September 18,2000) <br />D Planning Report (September 13,2000) <br />Application Review: <br />Applicant requests approval of an after-the-fact variance to permit replacement of a deck vtrithin the 7S* <br />setback to a protected tributary. The applicant has stated the preexisting deck was not safe and needed <br />replacement. In July, 2000 it was observed the deck was being replaced without a permit. The deck has been <br />about 50% completed and is constructed larger than li.e dec.*': that was removed. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation: <br />Ihe Planning Commission Recommended 7 to 0 to deny the application because the amount of hardcover <br />within the 75* setback would be increased. The Planning Commission also reviewed'the application and <br />determined they would have not recommended increasing the size of the deck had the application been <br />reviewed prior to any work being completed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission they would <br />support replacement of a deck without increasing the hardcover within the 75' setback. <br />Revised Plan: <br />Based on the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, the applicant has proposed a revision to <br />the plan that would remove some of the deck located within the 75' setback and extend to the deck to the <br />south an additional 2* (most of which would be outside of the 75' setback to the creek) Please refer to <br />Exhibits A and B showing the sur\ ey and proposed plans. The applicant has stated the deck extension to the <br />south may be better because it would require fevver steps up to the deck platform. Some of the deck would