10-21-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1689 October 16, 1991 Page 3 Certainly, the driveway as it exists is very minimal and constitutes the least amount of hardcover necessary to accomplish its purpose. In the scheme of things, the question that now needs to be asked is whether the applicant should be allowed to construct a 10'x26' screen porch where he had been permitted to have a deck. Applicant has removed the deck already, and second story glass doors walk out to an 8* drop. Average setback is not an issue. Lot coverage including the three-season porch is 1,892 s.f. or 13.8%, meeting the 15% limit. All the proposed construction is out of the 0—75* setback. There is no 0- 75* hardcover. There are areas of rock and plastic on the property that can certainly be removed. These are all in the 75-250* zone, and constitute approximately 326 s.f. or 3.3%. Removal of these areas would leave final hardcover at 36.3%. The driveway cannot be further reduced without losing its functionality. There is no other hardcover on the property to consider for removal. Issues to Consider 1.In the context that interpretations of what is and what isn*t hardcover have changed since the house was built, what is a reasonable amount of hardcover for this property? 2.Does the applicant have a hardship in having been allowed to construct a deck in 1985, removing it in 1991, and now having unsafe doors exiting 8* above grade? 3.How does the recently paved driveway factor into this request? Should the applicant be required to make his driveway "porous** if he wants to have the 10*x26* screen porch? Is there any way to realistically accomplish this? 4.Should this application be considered in the context of other variances which have been granted to similar sized lots on Baldur Park Road? Certainly, staff can provide data for a number of hardcover variances granted in this neighborhood in the last four or five years.