07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

foiling Pile I1636 April lit 1991 Page 5 of 5In review of Resolution 91908# is the granting of a hardcover variance appropriate? If so# at what percentage? - northern property approved at 35% or as reaovals shown on staff sketch (Exhibit M) would result in reduction of 715.5 s.f. or 5.3% or other.There is an access stair/deck structure at the lakeshore bank that is in a serious state of disrepair. The final resolution oust advise applicant or future owner that structural repair will not be allowed and new access structure shall be built to approved standards (4* step width and 4*x4* landings).Zoning Pile 11636 April 17, 1991 Page 6Additional Conents and Planning Coaeaiasion R tiooThe Planning CoMission reviewed the original 1985 lot area and width variance granted the subject property and the property to the inaediate north. Meabers also noted the 35% hardcover variance granted the year after to the northern lot. Bardcover in a recent review involving the northern property showed hardcover at a 404^%. Meabers felt the landscape area to be ainuscule in relation to overall hardcover (115.5 s.f. or .8%) and that driveway in its present configuration was needed to provide safe access froa the site. The Planning Coaaission recoaaended against any further reaoval of existing hardcover iaprovesients and approved hardcover at the current 37.4%. The lakeside deck and street side deck were approved as constructed. Meabers found both decks not overly aabiticus but wanted to create a special notice in a final resolution advising a future owner that no further encroachment of the lakeshore yard will be approved. In consideration of the street side deck# Resolution 91817-B did discuss that the extension of a foundation wall would not be allowed. The street side deck did not require the extension of the foundation wall. Meabers approved the side setback variance and noted the original 30* setback between structures was satisfied (condition of 1965 variance). There was additional discussion regarding the existing access stair/deck structure. Puture owner should be advised of the unsafe condition and that existing structure would not be allowed to be improved and that new access stair must meet current standards of the City. Of the options set forth above# the applicant chose to approve the variance application as proposed. The enclosed resolution has been draft per the findings and conditions noted above.