07-15-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I To:Planning Commission Members From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:July 12, 1985 Subject:#876 Randy Asplund, 3444 Eastlake Street - Hardcover/Structure Variance - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Survey with Staff Sketch Exhibit B - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit C - Portion of 6/14/85 Planning Commission Memo Exhibit D - Planning Commision Minutes 6/17/85 At your last meeting the Planning Commission made a recommenda tion for the hardcover at 3424 Eastlake Street and tabled 3444 East- lake Street pending hardcover calculations and a better idea from the applicant and the homeowners, Mr. & Mrs. Monge, as to where they might consider planning an attached deck to replace the patio. Exhibits A & B show that hardcover in the 0-75' zone, comprised of the concrete patio and walkways, is 513 s.f. or 7.8%. In the 75-250' zone within the lot boundaries, hardcover is 3869 s.f. or 38.5%, which includes the house, sidewalk, and driveway plus backup pad. Note that the rock beds on this property do not have a plastic liner. If you perceive that credit should be granted all the way to the 250' mark in Outlet B, the 75-250' hardcover excluding the gravel driveway serving 3464 Eastlake is 28.6%. For the record, the City in effect created the hardship on this property by allowing a house to be built which ate up 23% of the available hardcover without driveways or sidewalks. By the same token, the lots are of such high dollar value that it would not be realistic to expect smaller houses to have been built, remembering that it was not feasible to construct basements in this relatively low ground. Perhaps special consideration should be granted in this case, and perhaps also for 3424 Eastlake Street. As far as the patio vs deck issue at 3444 , the patio and walks comprise 513 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The patio at its closest point is 49' from the lakeshore. Mrs. Monge has commented that the patio location is vastly preferable over a location near the house because it would not get any morning sunshine if near the house. Technically, a 16'x20' patio could be constructed anywhere along the west wall of the house, which would encroach only 9' into the 75' setback zone, and would be roughly equivelent to the area of the patio. The sidewalk leading to the lake does not seem to be necessary from a safety standpoint, since the ground is so flat here. I would urge the Planning Commission members to visit this site and talk to Mr. & Mrs. Monge so that their views can be expressed to you. The staff recommendation from my June 14, 1985 memo is still appropriate; you should consider addressing the "floating deck" issue.