02-25-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It was during these discussion which the property owners decided not to construct the addition on the east side of the residence. Instead, they are proposing slightly larger decks and changing one of the decks into a screen porch, both are on the lakeside of the residence. The proposed changes are as follows: (Exhibit B) I. Addition (“A") on the east will be not be constructed. Approved for 344 s.f. Decrease of 344 s.f. 2. Deck “B” will be a screen porch. Approved for 84 s.f. Proposing 141 s.f. Increase of 57 s.f 3. Deck“C” Approved for 198 s.f Proposing 337 s.f Increase of 139 s.f The hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone was approved at 4,413 s.f (15.3%). The new proposal reduces the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. It will decrease by 180 s.f to 4,233 s.f (15.0%), The lot coverage by structures was approved at 3,410 s.f (7.7%). The new proposal reduces the lot coverage by structures. It will decrease by 148 s.f to 3,262 s.f (7.4%). The location of the structure is what changes. The proposal incorporates more structure in the 0- 75' setback zone on the take side of the residence, rather than on the side of the residence further from the lake. (See Exhibit B). The proposed deck and screen porch are approximately 40' from the lake and are not the two story addition previously approved. The deck and screen porch do not affect any adjacent properties. The house and garage are both located in the 0-75' setback zone. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. Statement of Hardship: The application should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The residence and garage are both located in the 0-75' setback zone. #01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark 813 Panenwood Variance Changes page 2 of3 i! I i; . , iki ■ -.as. A . T> . ~%f —