HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from PlanningKey Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Strike Development Agreement
provision #1.2A requiring improvement and dedication of Leisure Lane as a public street;
replace with provision prohibiting access to/from the site via Leisure Lane and no street
improvements required to Leisure lane.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Access to/from the site via Leisure Lane vs. access
through the library property to the west or south (access should not be allowed to Leisure Lane
from any of the properties owned by the library if public street improvements are not made).
Written Testimony since Staff Report:
Notes:
Project: Maxwell Patio & Arbors
Location: 1065 Peacock Street, Sportsman's Point Subdivision No. 2
Application: variance
Highlights of Proposed Development: variance to 15-foot rear yard building setback; and limit on
fence height to 6 feet in the R-4 district.
Patio Cover: There is an existing patio cover on the site that was constructed in 2004. The posts for the
patio cover are set back approximately 1 foot from the rear property line, approximately 14 feet into the
required rear yard setback area; the cover does not encroach into the required side yard setbacks There is
also a 5-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement along the rear property line that
the subject patio cover encroaches into.
Arbors: There are also two arbors that stand approximately10 foot 4 inches tall and are approximately 14
foot 6 inches wide, that were constructed earlier this year. The arbors are located adjacent to the rear
property line. The subject arbors are considered fences and as such, are limited in height to 6 feet.
Topography: The land where the applicant's building pad for the house and rear yard area sit is
approximately 2+ feet lower than the land at the rear property line (see photos in Exhibit B). The grade on
which the house sits on the adjacent property appears to be quite a bit higher than the applicant's. The
neighbor's second story deck appears to encroach significantly within the rear setback area, giving them
direct view into the applicant's property.
Because of the difference in topography between the two properties and the proximity of the neighbor's
deck in relation to the applicant's rear yard, the applicant constructed a patio cover and arbors for privacy.
Because the patio cover is attached to the house, a building permit is required. The Building Department
stated that a building permit was not issued to that address for the aforementioned structures. The
applicant states that she was not aware that a permit had not been obtained because she hired a contractor
to do the work. Thus, she didn't realize she was in violation of City ordinances.
8/12/2008
Other: In order to grant a Variance, the City Council must find the following:
1) The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the
district;
2) The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and
3) The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff believes that granting a Variance for the reason requested by the applicant would not grant a right or
special privilege to the applicant that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Due to the topography of this
particular site being significantly lower than the adjacent property, staff believes the variances are
warranted. Further, Staff believes that there is an undue hardship to this property owner due to the lower
elevation of her property in relation to her neighbor's property. If the Council should decide to grant the
Variance, Staff believes that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare.
However, the City Council should rely on any testimony provided at the public hearing to determine this
finding.
Elevations (photos): Yes
Staff Recommendation: approval
Notes:
8/12/2008