Laserfiche WebLink
#2238 <br />May 14. 1997 <br />Page 3 <br />hardcover status was always questionable. Proposed hardcover removals include the small shed <br />near the lake, the shed near the house, the 800 sf gravel driveway, and additional portions of the loop <br />driveway. The current hardcover appears to be as follows: <br />0-75’ Zone (Area = 33,050 sf) <br />Existing Proposed <br />Structural:House 770 sf 770 sf <br />Deck/Room/Stair 240 sf 240 sf <br />Deck at Shore 120 sf 120 sf <br />4x9 Shed 36 sf (Remove) <br />Non-Structural:Loop Driveway 1530 sf 1480 sf <br />Sidewalks, etc.113 sf 81 sf <br />Driveway to Lake 800 sf fRemovel <br />3609 sf 2691 sf <br />(10.9%)(8.1%) <br />75-250' Zone (Area = 13,400 sO <br />Existing Proposed <br />Structural:House 797 sf 797 sf <br />Shed 12.6x8.2 103 sf (Remove) <br />New Garage —960 sf <br />Non-Structural:Driveway 3680 sf 2830 sf <br />Sidewalk 126 sf 126 sf <br />Other Concrete 89 sf 56 sf <br />Misc Decks, etc 84 sf 46 sf <br />4879 sf 4815 sf <br />(36.4%)(35.9%) <br />-£ <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1 . Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to support approval of the additional structural <br />hardcover associated with the new garage? Does Planning Commission accept the proposed gravel <br />hardcover removals as well as the shed removals as adequate mitigation? As an alternative to the <br />applicants plan, can the loop driveway be eliminated in the 0-75' zone, leaving a larger parking pad <br />in the 75-250' zone? <br />2, Do the findings and conditions of the prior approval (Resolution # 3611) still apply as regards <br />the deck enclosure? If so, is there any reason to allow the 120 sf lakeshore deck to remain? <br />Applicant's attorney has suggested a 5-year amortization regarding removal of the lakeshore deck. <br />If applicant was not asking for variances to add structure in the 0-75' zone, absent other issues an