10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[i Zoning File #1879 October 15. 1993 Paee 2 Apparently, applicant hiKl had some discussion with Building Inspector Tom Jacobs at that time, ••Iihough no record of such discussion or subsequent permit exists. The deck as constructed today is 2’ from the side lot line where such a deck would normally require a 10 ’ side setback. This issue came to light when a neighbor ’s survey indierted applicant’s fence was over the property line on the east side (since moved back onto property). A pi'rt.’on of applicant’s maintained yard area is actually on tte neighboring property. Staff cannot confum what specific hardcover was at the site cf the deck prior to 1985. Inspection today by Lyle Oman indicated that the rear deck and a portion of the side deck arc over what appears to be a concrete slab. This leaves approximately 350-400 s.f. of deck in the side and front yard over bare ground, constiniting approximately 2.7-3.1'J hardcover that potentially did not previously exist. The entire property is in the 250*500 ’ zone, and total hi.rdcover today is 35.0% according to the surveyor’s calculations. Discussion The deck system as it exists complements the house and seems to be an integral amenity that has now existed for eight years. The neighbor to the northeast who was concerned about the fence has not commented regarding this application, although he has been notified. Also notable is that the chain link fence at the rear of the property extends 2.16’ over the line. Without question, this house sits tightly into the rear of a relatively narrow 70 ’ wide lot. Absent confirmation of what previously existed, staff questions whether action should be taken to grant after-the-fact approval for the deck. Note that the railing surrounds it for safety purposes, yet the railing is what makes it an encroachment. The non-encroachment code section would allow a "ground fioor level" deck within 2’ of the lot line. Should we require that the railing be removed to make the deck setback legal, ignoring the safety issue? Aside from the setback issue, the deck appears to constitute a hardcover increase from 32.5% to 35%. in a zone that allows only 30% hardcover. Should the deck or portions of it be removed because it constitutes excess hardcover that was never approved? Or should an equivalent 350-400 s.f. of hardcover be removed elsewhere on the property? Where might that removal occur? It may be of some benefit to have the homeowner describe to Planning Commission in detail exactly what work was done in 1985 and what e.xact changes were made. That seems to be the missing piece of information in order to come to a fair lecommendation.