07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Soning Fil# 11636 April II, 1991 Page 3 of 5Roviow Exhibits D and 0, in 1985 ths City granted lot araa and lot «#idth variances to this property and the property to the iMiediate north. The purpose %ras to allot# the oi#ner to sell the lot to the north for residential developSMnt. Developeient was to be based on specific guidelines set forth in the approval resolutions. Development of the subject property was spelled out in Resolution 1718-B (Exhibit D). In 1986, a year after the original variance approval, the City granted hardcover variances to the lot to the north because the current owner then clained practical hardships with being required to install a driveway •'ith the porous block. In order to allow a driveway with an appropriate backout apron, the property was approved at 35% hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. Review the findings and hardships noted in that resolution. The applicant has asked the sane consideration as porous blocks are not practical in this clinate and create even nore problesis for hoaieowners in the maintenance and upkeep. The paved drive at 2,809.85 s.f. results in 20.8% of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. laaues for Consideration - 1. The side setback variance for the street side deck located 3.1* from north "side loC line. Resolution 11718-B stati followst "Any extension westerly of the north wall of the existing house must meet the 10* aide yard setback.” The deck does not result in the extension of the wall of the foundation of the principal structure. What was the intent of this condition? • In 1985 a grade-level deck would have been allowed 2* from a side lot line. Staff no longer considers deckb with railings as non-encroachments but as part of the principal structure required to meet all setbacks of the principal structure. The deck would now have to meet a 10* setback. The deck was constructed some time in 1985-86. Applicant contends that based on the location of the current entrance and entrance to the addition on the south side, that the connecting deck made functional sense and a positive aesthetic benefit to the structure. Zoning Pile 11636 April 11, 1991 Page 4 of 52. Excessive hardcover within the 72-250* setback area.The existing paved drive brings the property up to 37.4% hardcover. Review staff's sketch (Exhibit MK Staff has sketched in areas of drive that could be reau>v^ and still function resulting in a reduction of 600 s.f. or 4.4% hardcover. Note also that there is a landscape area underlain with plastic at 115.5 s.f. or .85%. Can the same findings be made for the current hardcover variance application as was made in the variance application of 1986 (review Exhibit 0)7 Please be prepared to respond to this issue. 3.Issue of deck__ ____ constructed without gilding permit authority. In 1985/86 deck %#ould have been approved at 3.1* setback. Would such action have been in conflict with intent of Resolution 11718-B? The decks would not have created hardcover excesses because porous blocks were to be used for drive (hardcover was at 19%). Both decks would not have required other setback variance. Options of Action - Denial. Please refer to the necessary findings sv;ction in your zoning code; or Approval as proposed and require applicant to obtain necessary building permits to cover lakeside and street-side declis. Building permit to include penalty fee. Conditional approval of application as proposed subject to applicant obtaining building permit for lakeside and street side decks, to include penalty fee, and the granting of a hardcover variance of _ _% and a setback variance of _ _• or _ _ _% for street deck based on oae or more of the fol lowing; 1. Approval or disapproval of lakeside deck as built. 2. Approval of street-side decks A. at current location; or B. to be alterated to meet 10* setback; C. other. 3. Excessive hardcover at 37.4%.