Laserfiche WebLink
<br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />SUBJECT: <br />DATE: <br /> <br />DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE <br />THOMAS PASCHKE, CITY PLANNER <br />SETBACK PERMITS FOR GARVIN & HUPPERTZ <br />05/31/2002 <br /> <br />I have reviewed the two requests for Setback Permit consideration and have the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />1. Tim Garvin, 1812 Dale Court. <br /> <br />Section 1012.02B2 allows decks to be constructed to within two feet of a side <br />yard property line. In the case of the Garvin proposal, the deck would be <br />constructed to within four feet. However, once a roof is placed over the deck or <br />portion thereof, as in the case of the requested Setback Permit, the City Code <br />determines a porch a portion of the principal structure and requires a ten foot <br />minimum setback from a side yard property line. <br /> <br />I have reviewed the purpose and intent of the Setback Permit process and <br />determined that: <br /> <br />a. One car garage or less is located on the site - DOES NOT APPLY. <br /> <br />b. The proposed project improves the design and livability of the structure - <br />YES; the addition of a covered deck would allow/afford the <br />applicant/ structure to be used (livability) almost year round and <br />improves the design by adding an additional useable structural <br />component. <br /> <br />c. The proposed project improves the terrain or a drainage issue - DOES <br />NOT APPLY; in my review it appears no drainage issues exist and, <br />thoulilic:me could make a case for improving terrain (landscape <br />aest~~, I do not feel it is appropriate. <br /> <br />d. The original reason or need for the setback permit was not created by the <br />current owner - NO; The DRC has struggled with this site condition in <br />the past; however, the applicant is creating the need for the setback <br />permit. <br />