06-10-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 3 construction of remodeling/additions, and ended up with a detached rather than attached garage. Staff reviewed hardcover prior to issuance of the remodeling permit and found it would be w ithin the limits of the approved hardcover numbers. (See Exhibits F-4 and F-5.) - The square footage attributed to rock walls is significantly higher than what was originally approved, but this may be related to how they were calculated. Rock walls were to be reduced from 442 s.f. to 194 s.f, but still remain at 330 s.f. - The area of sidewalks includes a revised configuraticn reflecting the detached garage, as well as the addition of a number of stepping stone walkways at various locations around the house. It is staffs opinion that half of the 384 s.f. "overage" is attributable to survey discrepancies, was originally approved in concept, and should not be at issue. The other half of the discrepancy appeal^ to be attributable to the rock wails and other walkways. Given the nature of improvements on the property, the need to access various parts of the property via walkways, and the arguable hardcover nature of the rock walls, staff would recoiTimend the City accept the current hardcover calculations as meeting the intent of Resolution No. 2254 and would not penalize applicant for the nunierical discrepancies. Replacement of the 19.2’x9.4’ deck "in-kind" does not change the percentage of hardcover on the property. That deck is not encroaching on any required setbacks, and is an integral part of the scheme of this property. Staff Recommei'.dation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Note that applicant has paid the after the fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application (i.e. paid $120 renewal fee and $120 after the fact fee). During the nearly two years it has taken to get this application in front of the Plamiing Commission, the applicant has expressed frustration with the policy that makes this application necessary. It can be argued that "in-kind" replacement of decayed and dangerous decks should not be .subject to variance approval under certain circumstances, such as past approval as part of a variance request, lack of encroachment of any setbacks, no changes to footprint or bulk of structure, etc. The opposite argument, adopted by Council as policy many years ago, is that replacement of such a structure is often an opportunity for the City to require improvements to the hardcover situation. Additionally,