Laserfiche WebLink
IV <br />r <br />' V. <br />Zoning File #1652 <br />June 10, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />Please review th*. applicants description of request and <br />hardship statements, ard the note from the Miller's next door. <br />The deck will encroach .10 closer to the side r • reet lot line <br />the original deck, and the only portion being closer to the alley <br />will be the 4* x 4' platform and stairway. Your visit to the <br />site will confirm that 2 of the 3 entrances to this residence <br />would be made accessi^'e by this deck. <br />Adjacent hot History <br />Applicant's property has no garage, and a small me* al <br />across the alley to the west appears to be associated with this <br />property. The lot west of the alley was once owned in common <br />with applicant's lot, but we.nt tax forfeit a numbe' of years ago, <br />and is available for sale only to at jacent landowners. While it <br />may take Council approval, applicants property could be <br />considered as adjacent and, therefore, should be eligible to <br />purchase that lot. <br />Also note that when sewer was brought to applicants property, the <br />assessment was split between applicants lot and the lot across <br />the alley. The City has never recovered that half of the <br />assessment, and would expect to recover that as part of the sale <br />of this lot (it is staff's understanding that the tax forfeit <br />status of the westerly lot occurred prior to Fleischman s <br />purchase). <br />At any rate, although it is somewhat unrelated to the variance <br />request, applicants are advised that the shed should be moved <br />onto their own property or they should make arrangements to <br />purchase the vacant lot and combine it with their homestead lot. <br />Note that acquisition of the lot would likely provide a place <br />where a gi\rage could conceivably be constructed in the future. <br />Staff Re ndation <br />If the Planning Commission finds that there is sufficient <br />hardship for allowing construction of the replacement deck, then <br />a recommendation for approval of setback and lot coverage <br />would be in order. The Planning Commission shou <br />specifically define the hardships supporting approval. <br />. .................... ^ j <br />T 2^”/^ ^ <br />"O <br />^ • *. ‘ <br />6v