09-24-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning file #1579 August 17r 1990 Page 3 This lot is similar to the Wally Krahl property to the immediate west, in which the house is below the road and there is significant hardcover (rock and plastic) north of the house to help eliminate basement water problems while p* Tviding a ground cover where no grass would likely grow. As indicate*- above, staff noted one minor addition to hardcover which the surveyor did not note on his survey, i.e. 4' x 40* rock bed adjacent to the driveway. It appears that applicant has been digging a trench underneath the 3 season porch adjacent to the deck. If the intent is to replace the existing porch support posts with a concrete wall and footings, that also will require a building permit. Given the lengthy process through which staff has attempted to gain compliance on this property, the applicant has enjoyed at least two seasons of use of this deck system. However, with little existing hardcover area that can be reasonably removed to significantly reduce hardcover on the property, the added deck area is significant from a hardcover standpoint. Staff Reconmendation 1. Staff recommends that the 20' x 9' deck sectior Jthest from the house, which extends 2' into the next property, .. removed in its entirety, and this area revert back to non-hardcover. This will not only reduce hardcover by 180 s.f., but will eliminate the encroachment across the line and the encroachment into the 10* required side yard setback area. 2. Planning Commission should determine whether the remaining 10* x 16* and" 9* x 18* deck areas can remain, given the hardcover situation and the 10* encroachment past the average setback line. Removal of the 10' x 16' portion that extends lakeward of the 3. 4. 5. house, would leave a originally existed. deck about 4* x 18' smaller than what Planning Commission should determine if there are any other areas of hardcover on the property that can be eliminated to reduce the high percentage of hardcover in the 75-250* zone. For whatever deck is allowed to remain, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact building permit and revise the deck as necessary to meet building code standards. Applicants paid only the standard $175 variance application fee. Does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to not require payment of the after-the-fact fee of an additional $175 which should have been collected at the time of application?