12-09-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 December 5, 1996 Zoning File #2180 for new construction. This type of concern would be best addressed in the private covenants for the development. Casco Cove is a private road maintained by the residents. The applicants may be asked to make repairs of danage to road resulting from new construction but the covenants or agreements may be in place to address such concerns for the Casco Cove area. As for the issue of runoff and diminution of sunlight, the structure meets the required side setback. Drainage from the residence must be contained and directed within the side yards of the property following e.xisting drainage pattern to either street or lake. The applicants’ contractor will be expected to provide a detailed grading and drainage plan with the building permit application. At the November meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr. Powell and two other residents were in attendance and noted their support of the Pichelmans' amended proposal. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit E, applicants note lot is located on quiet cul-de-sac with no through traffic. Actual traveled road is located 14-15' from street lot line. The existing house is a small two bedroom rambler and growing family needs require additiopal.b!^ooi%jf^3^Tbe existing bouse „ is served by a single stall garage. All improvements will meet the required setbacks of the zoning~ district and no improvements are proposed within the 0-75' setback area. Applicants contend the amended proposal will more closely fit the pattern of development within the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposal as amended and approved the 2.1% excess of structural coverage and increase of approximately 6% of additional hardcover improvements within the 75-250' setback area. They specifically asked that hardcover not exceed 39%. Applicants have proposed 39.3%. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If Council members wish to maintain hardcover at exactly 39% then an additional 24 s.f. of proposed hardcover improvements must be eliminated from the improvement plan. The enclosed resolution has been drafted with approval based at the 39.3% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution i