09-23-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. After having discussed the proposed second story addition with the building inspectors, applicant’s contractor with applicant's knowledge proceeded with the construction project, apparently under an incorrect assumption that it was possible to eliminate enough hardcover to meet Code requirements. When the building inspectors found the work underway, a Stop Work Order was posted. This work was found to be occurring approximately 1 week after application for hardcover variance was submitted. The applicant has agreed to remove lining materials from all landscaped beds on the property, and further has agreed to remove a currently existing portion of deck encroaching into the 0-75' zone where no structure is normally allowed, and has agreed to remove a large portion of brick patio located in both 0-75* and 75-250' zones, and is reducing portions of sidewalk in the 75-250* zone. The net result of such hardcover removals is a decrease in hardcover from the pre- 1975 level of 14.1% to a proposed level of 7.2% in the 0-75' zone, and from a pre-1975 hardcover at 31.2% in the 75^250* zone, down to 30.4% proposed. The proposed hardcover removals exlibit a good faith effort on the part of the applicant to reduce hardcover as much as possible without having a negative impact on the use of the property. The Planning Commission rejects the applicant's arg\unent that actual hardcover percentages can be reduced based on the existence of an inground drainage absorption system, because the capability and reliability of that system has not been adequately demonstrated. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the after-the-fact variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply Page 2 of 6