Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />i:r.•; •* <br />K: <br />h <br />1^'- <br />^'' <br />I- <br />I-r <br />II.,. <br />- -r.', <br />Zoning File #1611 <br />January 16, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />Discussion <br />Please review the Building inspector's memo of January 0, <br />1991. The Building Inspector's observations and the accompanying <br />photographs suggest that the applicant was attempting to avoid <br />having to obtain a permit or City ^ipproval for the deck <br />replacenent. The applicant has paid the after-the-fact variance <br />fee, and, if the application is approved, would be required to <br />obtain an after-the-fact building permit. <br />Staff's site inspection on January 16, 1991 verified that <br />the hardcover calculations by Gronberg appear to be correct, and <br />the overall dimensions of the deck are nearly identical to the <br />old deck dimensions on record. <br />Staff Bei ifsndation <br />Given that replacement of the pre-existing deck has resulted <br />in no increase in hardcover on the property, after-the-fact <br />approval might be justified by no increase in hardcover, no <br />changes in the existing encroachment in the 0-75' zone, and <br />creation of a safer deck. If necessary, there are a few very <br />limited areas of rock and plastic in the 0-75' zone that could be <br />reawved to result in a decrease in hardcover. A requirement that <br />the applicant obtain an after-the-fact building permit would be <br />appropriate if approval is recommended. <br />Isv <br />5; <br />A <br />— OF <br />J'l <br />'% 'p