08-20-1990 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #lb74 August 17, 1990 Page 2 of 3 3.Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 37.5%. A 1984 variance to allow the currently existing decks was approved at 29.0% hardcover. However, a review of that application indi . •. that sidewalks and rock beds were not included in the 'culations at that time, since that was around the time when the City was just starting to become more restrictive in enforcement of hardcover regulations. 4.Because pool water surfaces have consistently not been considered as hardcover by the City, the total net increase of hardcover before removals would be about 368 s.f. The applicant has proposed removals of the rockbed underliners, and removal of a small front walk, for total removals of 927 s.f. Therefore, once the pool is constructed and the removals are completed, there should be a net reduction in hardcover in the 75-250' zone of approximately 559 s.f. or 1.9%, for a final hardcover of 10,430 s.f. or 35.6%. 6.Lot coverage by structures, including the pool and its associated patio, will be 11.4%, well within the 15% limitation. Discussion - The applicants worked with staff to get an early start on some of the interior remodeling work that does not need variances. They were advised to limit such work to that which could stand in the event that the variances weren't approved. The work that is proceeding includes a wall bumpout in the foyer area over existing foundation; addition of basement bath; and moving kitchen cabinets to the basement for use in a "rec room" kitchenette (applicants were advised this could not be used for a guest apartment use without a conditional use permit; they indicate no intent to have a guest apartment). None of the above work is outside the existing footprint or rooflines. The average lakeshore setback variance for the 4' extension towards the side lot line is necessary because the house to the north is relatively far from the lake. The average setback ordinance exists to protect lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. In this case, mature trees along the shared lot line already screen applicants' existing house, and the 4' extension and slight raising of that end of the house, will likely have no impact on lake views enjoyed by that neighbor. Likewise, the impact of the pool on views from either adjacent neighbor will be very minimal, because that pool will be at a relatively low elevation compared to the two neighboring houses. ' __1