Laserfiche WebLink
-I <br />j ■ <br />ii <br />V <br />•i <br />* • i‘" <br />%y 1 <br />n <br />I <br />4 <br />If <br />•. <br />I <br />TBS Planning Coaniation Chalrsan Kallay Ot<mo Planning Coaaiaslon Wafttbara <br />City AdBiniatrator Bamhard'ton <br />Jaanna A. KabaatYit t Z'^r!^g MniiiiiatJratQjr <br />imtas July 12r 1988 <br />Mbfactt 11207 Case and Catharina Scanlon TilS Caaco Point Road <br />* Variances -> Third Raaiair <br />List of Adabits <br />Bxhibit A - Planning Cosadaaion Hotica of Action 8/21/88 <br />Exhibit B - Raaisod Survey <br />Bxhibit C - Plan Drawing <br />Exhibit D Elevation <br />Bxhibit B - ADroxiaats Locaticm of Hardcover to bo BMOVSd <br />Bxhibit F - Jacobs Kano <br />Bsvisv of Vsrli i.l*L i fton^t by Applicant <br />1. Section 10.22« Subdivision 1 (B) Lakaahora •atbsci for structures <br />Raquirad ■ 75- <br />Original Shad - 0* (75' or 100% variance) <br />Proposed Shed •■24' (51* or 68% variance) <br />Original Daclc • 15* <60' or 80% variance) <br />Proposed Dade «• 24* (51* or 68% variance) <br />2. Section 10.22# Subdivision 2 Laieeshora har dcover*" <br />0-75* setlMclc area • 4#200 . .f. <br />Allowed « 0 s.f. <br />Original Hardcover - 249 s.f. or 6% (210 s.f. dads# 49 s.f. shed) <br />Proposed Hardcover ■• 165 ^.f. or 3.9% (Shed located under dec)e not includedi <br />and stairs/safety landing of 149 s.f. excluded) <br />75-250' aatbac)c area 9#600 s.f. <br />Allowed • 2#400 s.f. or 25% <br />Existing - 4#200 s.f. or 43.7% <br />Proposed - 4#043 s.f. or 42.1% <br />Resoval of 150 s.f. (52.5 s.f. adjarent to access stairs at rear of house <br />and 104.5 s.f. at northeast corner of residence# see staff slcetch Bxhibit <br />E) <br />Please note the 165 s.f. of additional hardcover to be removed within <br />applicants lakeshore yard has not been included in the above calculations <br />because they were not included in the original hardcover calculations <br />totaling 4#200 s.f. <br />Bsvlsw of Application <br />At your June 20th meeting# all but one member of the Planning Commission <br />conceptually approved the variance request of the applicant subject to <br />their sulxaltting revised plans that clearly defined what the applicant was <br />proposing within the guidelines of the Planning Coamlssion directives. <br />t: <br />j <br />i <br />2- <br />R <br />r <br />r. <br />E: <br />Ai <br />p: <br />8i <br />f] <br />•I <br />Tt <br />•P <br />PI <br />an <br />to