05-20-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 11, 1991 Fagp 3 of 5Roviow Exhibits D snd 0, in 1985 tho City granted lot ires SAd lot width variances to this property and the property the isMdiate north. The purpose was to allow the otmer to sell the lot to the north for residential developwent. Development was to be based on specific guidelines set forth In the approval resolutions. Development of the subject property was spelled out in Eesolotion 1718-B (Exhibit D). In 1988, a year after the orifiaal variance approval, the City granted hardcover variances to the lot to the north because the current owner then claieed practical hardships with being required to install a driveway with 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 clieate and create even wore problena for hoeieowners in the naintenance and upkeep. The paved drive at 2,809.85 s.f. results in 20.8% of hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. Zaonoa for Conaidoratloo - !• The side setback variance for the street side deck locatW* 3.1* tr^ nortlt "side Tot line. Resolution 91718-B states as followsi •Any extension westerly of the north wall of the existing house oust neet the 10* side yard setback." The deck does not result in the extension of the wall of the foundation of the principal structure. Ifhat was the intent of this condition? In 1985 a grade-level deck would have been allowed 2* from a aide lot line. Staff no longer considers decks with railings as non-encroachsienta 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 il83€ 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 M). Staff has sketched in areas of drive that could be removeu ^nd still function resulting in a reduction of 800 s.f. >r 4.4% hardcover. Note alto that there is a landscape area under lain with plastic at 115.5 s.f. or .85%. Can f he same findings be made for the current hardcover /ariancs application as was made in the variance applicat'on of 1988 (review Exhibit 0)7 Please be prepared to respond to this issue. 3* Issue of deck constructed without buiIding permit authority, in 1985/86 deck wouidi have been approved at i.V setback. Would such action have been in conflict with intent of Resolution #1718-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. Optiona of Action - Denial. Please refer to the necessary findings section in your toning code; or Approval as proposed and require applicant to obtain necessary building permits to cover lakeside and street-side decks. 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 one or more of the following; 1. Approval or disapproval of lakeside deck as built* 2. Approval of street-side deck; A. at current locationi or B. to be aIterated to meet 10* setbacki C. other. 3. Excessive hardcover at 37.4%*