Laserfiche WebLink
Zomag F:k #1S36 <br />Jane I7. 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />The KCT>aJ ncfy «ill lave minimal unpAct on Ukeshorc «ie^ of rcsideiue to <br />the ramwlttie north M taKeUlOfe viem winJcsws arc alrcAly blocked by privKy fcocii^ ahmf <br />the kK Itne <br />SUfnana of llan^p <br />Pteisc review Exhibi! A. The bouse is saiall compared to the aljaccnt homes. The <br />improvTincni would be consilient u ith the curteia putem of dcseiofroent m the neighborhood <br />The swKturc ^»s kxslcd on the prt^fty prior to corrent zoning regulatioiB anJ l.ikeshiwe <br />setbtek re^uiretnenu and as a resuh the majoniy of the rrskieiKe is livated within the 0-73 ’ <br />zone. The entire expansion is upward and docs not increase hardco.cr The steeper elevatkHB <br />to the west or street make horizontal espamn^ difti u:: and non-functKMUl based on the <br />layout of the currcia bou%. A wTstward additioa ma> also necessitate the removal of mature <br />tros. <br />i <br />•k <br />Tsisnw for Considrralidli <br />What existing hardcover improvements can be reduced? Staff would recommend that the <br />drivew^ backout ana remain as shown, as property abuts a busy county mad. TIk only other <br />area to reduce would he the patio If applicant is to ii^ll a new cemem patio, a 5’ x 17 ’ <br />scciJDO as shown on Exhibit J could be eliminated. Hardcover would be reduced by 85 #.f. in <br />the 0*75 ’ /one or .75%. The non-structural setback would now be .^9.3ii ’.