VN-238 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S- Lawson,--VN-238 October 18, 1984 . Page 3 ~ . APPLICANT'S: RESPONSE _ _ The applicant exp ains'in the attached letter that the newly :constructed deck., which does not conform to the setback requirements, i s •a re placement for a previously exsti ng deck which was deteri orati ng ; and in~poor condition. The new deck was constructed in the same lo- cation as the on gi.na7 deck. The original deck was in piace:when the applicant's purchased their 'home ~n 1977. The applicant explains that the situation is unique because~of the previously existing deck and that the:new deck is an improvement over the old one. Hardship would result in the loss of time and expense which was put into the con-, struction of the new deck. The pictures the applicant refers to in the attached letter were not included with the information provided to staff. The. pictures will be shown by the applicant at the City Council meeting. A petition presented by the applicant at the public hearing is attached: STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has constructed a deck with a zero side street yard. setback. Construction of the new deck required the applicant to remove an existing deck. The new deck was located in exactly the same location as the original deck: .Had the applicant realized a building permit was. necessary the applicant would have had the opportunity to relocate the ..,.deck consistent with the district setback requirements or apply for a variance prior to construction of the new deck. The existing home was built when the zoning code allowed a 15 foot side street yard setback. The home has an actual side street yard. setback of 23 feet. The zoning code contains a provision .under Section 4-040(c) which states that lots platted prior to August 21, 1981 will not be considered non-conforming in their side street yard setbacks. This ordinance applies to the applicant's home. To be visually compatible . with the existing home and surrounding properties and comply with Section. 4-040 (cZ the deck should be subject to the same setback as the existing home, which in. this case is 23 feet. (See attached map) At the public hearing on October 16th the Planning Commission determined. -that the setback of the, deck should be subject to Section 4-580 (b), a two foot setback requirement. :This is a new interpretation of this section of the code. Attached is a memorandum from Ron Nienaber, 6uild- ing Official which explains this code provision has never been interpreted to include decks. :Decks have always been subject to the building setbacks If decks were subject to_this section of the code the City would have to allow construction of a deck in ,any yard, including the front yard, to within two feet of the property line. In addition a privacy railing or other, if attached to the deck, could be constructed at any height be- ` cause it would not fall under the fence provisions in Section 4-540 (d). :~:,