04-10-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUNCIL MFETING APR 101939 9 CITY OF OROHO Proa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dates March 14, 1989 Subjects #1387 Margaret D. Rossing, 130 Cygnet Place - After-the-Pact Variance - Public Hearing Liat of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Pormer Deck Current Deck Septic Inventory Map Pertinent Ordinance “ Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A) - Rear setback variance required for dec.«. attached to principal structure. Second story deck must meet the setback required for principal structure of 50*. The previous deck was constructed sometime in the early 1970*s. No record of a permit being issued. The original building plans confirm that the deck wos not shown with house plan. constr*'.ction 4/69 - R-IC) Required Setback * 50* (current RR-IB zoning) Required ** 30* (former zoning at time of house Existing Principal * 25* Pormer Deck * 14* Current Deck ® 11*4" Current Variance ■ 38*8" or 76% Pormer Variance « 36* or 72% History of the Zoning of the Property - At the time of the platting of the Swan Lake Subdivision, the minimum standard for the area was 25,000 s.f. in area with 120* required width at the building line. In April of 1969 when the house was constructed on the property, the property was zoned R-IC requiring a minimum of 1 acre, 140* of width, 35* front setback, 30* rear setback, and 10* side setbacks. The house was placed 25* from the rear lot line instead of the required 30*. All other required setbacks were satisfied. It is not clear to staff as to why an area variance would not have been required prior to the construction but there is no record of an area variance being granted. In 1975, the property was rezoned to 2 acres with the current standards of 50* front and rear and 30* side setbacks. There is no record of a building permit being issued for the former deck which was probably built sometime in the early 1970*s. Staff '*23 photographs of the crevious deck that conformed to the sketch submitted by applicant (review Exhibit E). The applicant rebuilt the deck without a building permit because she was not aware that a building permit was required. The present deck conforms pretty much to the design and extent of the former deck except that the deck along the rear of the house has been extended to the east corner. The new deck is located 11*4" from the rear lot line whereas the previous deck was located approximately 14* from the rear lot line.