02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1992 February 9, 1995 Page 3 The current application involves major structural repairs to the 59 x 26 greenhouse addition connected to the oversized accessory structure totaling 1,534 s.f. in area. The existing foundation shall be retained and the upper portions of the structure to be replaced with a new aluminum and glass upper structure. The existing brick foundation shall be repointed and new brick veneer placed over existing masonry walls on the south side of greenhouse structure. The structure shall be approximately the same height. As already noted above in the facmal findings, the greenhouse addition is located 50+’ from the public road and 80 ’ from the side lot line and meets the required setbacks. The oversized accessory structure was formally recognized by the City in October of 1993, review Exhibit G. The detached accessory garage at the east lot line shall also sustain major structural repairs consisting of a new roof, new doors, replacement of wood facia and rafter tails. The walls running along the east and south lot lines shall also be repaired or replaced. The walls located within the side yard (50’ in from the street) are 6’ in height and would not require approval of a variance. The entrance walls located 50+’ from street and at 6’ in height will also not require variance approvals. The application also involves the reconstruction of a retaining wall at the underground entrance to the greenhouse located within the 0-75’ setback area where no strucmres are allowed. The wall supports the banks of an underground tunnel that accesses beneath the greenhouse. Retaining walls are proposed at 30 s.f. reflecting no change in hardcover. The .29% increase in the 0-75’ hardcover inventory reflects the 30 s.f. of retaining wall not included in original calculations, a driveway originally proposed as a grassed drive at 12" width (refer to Exhibit M) at 250 s.f. and 160 s.f. of a pathway providing access to the lakeside deck/stair structure approved in 1993, refer to Exhibit J. The survey/site plan of 1993 revealed the path but hardcover facts never reflected the new hardcover proposed originally at an 8 ’ width. Statement of Hardship The hardships set forth in the resolutions for Applications #1867 and #1868 are applicable for the current review. Issues for Consideration 1.The original survey for Application #1867 reflected an 8 ’ paved path to the dock at the east shoreline, portions of which are located within the 0-75’ setback area. Does this information have an impact on your recommendation?