08-15-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988 ZONING FILE #1313 CONTINUED Bellows S'tated tihat she would like see an overall decrease in hardcover because applicant is adding a structure. She said she would hold fast to her definition of a porch with storms being an additional structure. Kelley stated that based upon staff's calculations, hardcover totalled 29.6%. Johnson asked whether applicant was only going to remove 3* from the concrete patio. He suggested removing more than that. Applicant stated that would be acceptable. JSaffron stated that if you just looA. at trade-offs in round numbers, they are close. Kelley suggested using 27% in the 0-75'. Gaffron stated that in the 0- 75' zone 1% would equal approximately 91 s.f. which would be 10' by 10'. Gaffron asked if the recommendation was a 32 s.f. reduction overall? Bellows stated that the odd shape of the proposed deck was making it difficult to translate the percentage . It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the variance providing that the hardcover in the 0- 75' zone did not exceed 29.6%. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1314 GERALD ROULETTE 3775 BATSIDE ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted• The applicants were present for this matter. Gaffron explained that the Rowlettes were proposing to construct a sunroom on the north side of the existing house. The sunroom would be located so it would fill an indentation along the outside north wall of the house. The applicants were granted variance approval in 1976 for the addition of a garage, rooms and deck which extended partially into the 0-75' zone. The approval was conditioned upon removal of a 20'x 20' concrete patio and replacing it with redwood. This has not been done. Applicants are currently seeking a street setback variance where the standard for this 2-acre zone is 50'. Kelley stated that he had no problem with the sunroom, however he did not like the fact that applicants had not complied with the removal of the patio, per the 1976 variance approval. He stated that based upon that, he should vote to deny approval of this request. He asked the applicants if there was a specific reason why they had not removed the patio. Mr. Rowlette stated that since 1976 they have removed other hardcover structures that would equal removal of the 20' x 20' patio. He stated that he did not remove the patio because they get an ice build up in that location and ice cannot be chipped off of a redwood deck without ruining the deck. Kelley asked applicant for his opinion as to