03-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M03-2865 March 3,2003 Page 2 Planning Commission apparently concluded that the westerly 0-75' deck is supported by sufFicient hardship, is needed to serve the adjacent room and patio door, and will have no significant impact on neighbor’s views of the lake as well as no impacts as viewed from the lake, given the recently approved landscape plan which calls for trees along the extended north line of the house, which would soften the visibility of the deck. Planning Commission concluded that the gravel parking area is needed to provide off-streel vehicle parking for this property given the limited area for parking in the driveway. The minority opinion (Fritzlcr, Smith) was that insufficient hardships existed to support the westerly deck portion of the application, and that the submitted construction plans were inadequate to support the applicant ’s position that the deck had been approved. The resulting hardcover and structural lot coverage percentages based on the Planning Commission ’s recommendations will be as follows; Existing/Previonsly Approved Per PC Recommendation West 0-75’ Hardcover 1540/5861 = 26.3%1582/586) =27.0% 75-250' Hardcover 1120/4462 = 25.1%11' .'4462 = 26.4% East 0-75' Hardcover ± 650/3600 = 18% (incl. shed)400/3600= 11.1% (Shed must go, 20x20 portion of gravel may remain) Lot Coverage by Structures (using all 3 lones, based on straight easterly extension of lot boundaries) 1875/13,923 = 13.5%1931/13,923 = 13.9% Staff Recommendation Staff supports the Planning Commission ’s recommendation to approve the gravel parking area and a maximum 4’ wide walkway between the house and garage. While staff does not agree that the circumstances surrounding the deck on the west 0-75 ’ zone rise to the level of a hardship, there are compelling reasons to approve that deck, i.e it replaces a much larger previously existing deck, it won ’t impact neighboring views of the lake, and it’s visual impact from the lake is minimal. The mere fact that a patio door was shown on the approved plans, or that a depiction of the superimposed footprint of the deck appeared on the plan used for foundation work, would not be compelling reasons to justify the deck absent other compelling reasons noted above. In this respect, staff agrees w ith the minority position of the Planning Commission. However, in deference to the majority opinion, staff recommends adoption of the attacked resolution which reflects the majority recommendation of the Planning Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution which reflects the majority recommendation of the Planning Commission.