Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2109 <br />February 12, 1996 <br />Page2 <br />Description of Request <br />As part of the major renovation of the older residence, the applicant wishes to enclose a former <br />roofed patio that was partially framed. Applicant has provided a photo of the original structure for <br />Planning Commission's review. Portions of the patio that was not covered by the original roof line <br />approximately 3 1/2'x14' was roofed with a translucent plastic panel. The applicant plans to <br />reconstruct a three season porch within the exact area. The porch will remain at 10'x14'. The <br />original cement slab will be enclosed. There is no change in the lot coverage facts as the roofed <br />patio area has also been included in the structural inventory. <br />Review Exhibit G, in 1982 the former owner received approval of front, side and rear setback <br />variances that allowed a 1 0'x30' addition to the south side of the existing residence providing <br />additional bedroom and living room area. The main issue for that review was that the property was <br />still served by an on-site septic system. The property is now served by sewer. Note the survey of <br />1982 does not show the roofed patio area. The improvement was made some time after 1982. <br />Applicant's addendum, Exhibit D, confirms that structure was in place at the time of their purchase <br />five years ago. As already noted, we have photos of the former roofed patio. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. The code does not distinguish between a roofed patio or three season porch as it relates to <br />structural coverage and setback controls. What of the intensification of the mass of structure <br />or the visual impact on adjacent properties? <br />2. The three season porch now becomes part of the principal structure. Should the porch area <br />be trimmed back to the area beneath the original roofline (6 1/2'x14')? <br />3. Will the deck have to be altered again to provide access to the well? How is access to be <br />achieved when the next well problem arises? <br />4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Hardship Statement -refer to Exhibit E <br />They are reviewed as follows: <br />1. The lot is 5,506.2 s.f. and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. <br />2. The lot was created and residence constructed prior to zoning requirements. <br />3. There is no adjacent lands available to combine with property.