Laserfiche WebLink
A. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of hi* <br />residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance <br />resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application can <br />be interpreted that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and <br />approved at that time. <br />Applicant obtained a building permit (#1140) for construction of proposed <br />screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant then constructed a <br />screen porch, added railings to the pre-existing deck, and a stairway at <br />the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The <br />w'ork covered under permit #1140 was subject to a final inspection on <br />June 26, 1989 after which time permit #1140 was considered as no <br />longer valid for further work. <br />In 1994 f ie applicant replaced major portions of the deck, which work <br />required a building permit as well as additional vaiiance approval because <br />it constituted a replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the <br />property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. <br />In-kind replacement of the deck as proposed and as completed has not <br />increased hardcover on the property above that which pre-existed. <br />Further, although hardcover based on applicants' 1996 survey appears to <br />be 384 s.f. in excess of the hardcover amount approved in 1987, it <br />appears that the hardcover excesses are due partly to survey discrepancies <br />and partly to interpretation of square footage of hardcover associated with <br />rock walls and walkways on the property. <br />The pre-existing deck was in a state of disrepair and was unsafe. Upon <br />application for a building permit, the applicant was advised of the need <br />for a variance. Applicant chose to replace the deck without w'aiting for <br />variance approval. <br />4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the comruunity. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />1