05-20-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

toning Pilo IliSf April 11, Iffl Pag« 5 of 5In roviov of Rotolotion lltot, is ths granting of m hardco¥or variance appropriate? If so, at what percentage? * northom property approved at 35% or as resiovals shown on staff sketch (Exhibit N) would result in reduction of 715.S 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 must advise applicart or future owner that atruitural repair will not be allowed and new access structure shall be built to approved standards (4* step width and 4*x4* landings). toning Pile il€3i April 17, 1991 Page €Additional nts and Planning Coamission Eeo sewndation The Planning Conaiission reviewed the original 1915 lot area and width variance granted the subject property and the property to the isuaediate north. Henbers also noted the 35% hardcover variance granted the year after to the northern lot. Hardcover in a recent review involving the northern property showed hardcover at a 40'*^%. Members felt the landscape area to be minuscule in relation to overall hardcover (115.5 s.f. or .9%) and that driveway in its present configuration was needed to provide safe access from the site. The Planning Commission recommended against any further removal of existing hardcover improvements and approved hardcover at the current 37.4%. The lalceside deck and street side deck were approved as constructed. Members found both decks not overly ambitious but wanted to create a special notice in a final resolution advisina a future owner that no further encroachment of the lakeshore yard will be approved. In consideration of the street side deck. Resolution 11917-i did discuss that the extension of a foundation wall would not be allowed. The street aide deck did not require the extension of the foundation wall. Members approved the side setback variance and noted the original 20* setback between structures was satisfied (condition of 1985 variance). There was additional discussion regarding the existing access stair/deck structure. Puture owner should be advised or 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 haa been draft per the findings and conditions noted above. I i