My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-28-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 07-28-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:32 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:36:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />,.. < <br /> <br />other things: balconies eight feet above grade may extend to within 5 feet of a lot line, <br />and covered porches could extend 20 feet into the rear yard provided they were not any . <br />closer than 10 feet from the rear lot line. A deck would likely have been considered <br />similar to one of these to items and would probably be pennitted without any variances. <br />Staff has also researched the Planning Case database and did not find a previous variance <br />for this property. <br /> <br />Building Permit: In 1973, a building pennit for a dwelling was issued to the owner for a <br />house that was to be approximately 28 feet deep, 56 feet wide, and located 45 feet from <br />the cul-de-sac, 85 feet from the property to the west, and 10 feet from the property to the <br />east. No information was provided on the rear setback; however the pennit did not <br />request that information either. Since there is no separate building pennit for the deck it <br />is possible that: A) pennits were not required for construction of decks; B) it was <br />somehow included in the original building permit (although the permit makes no mention <br />of a deck); C) permits were required at the time and this deck was constructed without a <br />pennit. Staffis under the impression that the deck was constructed under one of the first <br />two possibilities. <br /> <br />Based on the information stated above, staff has detennined that the deck was likely pennitted <br />when it was constructed in 1973. <br /> <br />Plannm!! Commission Recommendation <br /> <br />. In Planning Case #03-16, the Planning Commission recommends that the variance request of <br />eighteen (18) feet for the minimum rear setback be approved as submitted: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Although the Planning Commission discussed adding a condition, it appears that the condition <br />was not included in the formal action. The condition that the Planning Commission had <br />discussed would require that building pennits be filed with the Building Official for approval <br />prior to the issuance of a building pennit. While it is standard procedure to require a building <br />pennit for most construction projects, the condition would be another way to ensure that such <br />procedure was adhered to. If the Council so chooses approval could be made subject to the <br />following condition: <br /> <br />I. All necessary applications for building permits shall be filed with the City Building <br />Official for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. <br /> <br />Options <br /> <br />1. Recommend approval as submitted. <br />2. Recommend approval with conditions. <br />3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, <br />" .. .it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." <br />4. Table for additional information. <br /> <br />PC #03-16-- CC Report 07128/2003 - Page 2 00 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.