Laserfiche WebLink
I I\4 <br />r ‘VI; <br />mm I'sfe' <br />":i*- <br />:.• ■ V- <br />• ^ <br />'^■- • <br />Smin^ rii« flanfS9« 2 of 31:1m stroctaro would hdu# to bo ot tho lakeoido. If this was tho caso* tlw applicant would roqwiro a hoiqht varlanco# spoclflcally a 2* uarianca - total boifht 32*. Ravlaw Exhibit 5. Gaffrona calculationa confiro tha <br />lowar laval axpoaura at 43.1% and would ra<ruira tha naasura^mt tahan now <br />froai tho atraat laval antranca ahowing a total oaaaorosant of 2ft*f*» <br />raquiring no height varianca. <br />Flaaaa raviow Exhibit 1. Tha quaation of tho naad for a height variance <br />bacaaa oven oora ioportant to staff in light of tho neighbor who axproasod <br />concern about the view iaaua. In tha original discussions with tha <br />neighbor, staff never noted tho need for a height variance. <br />Throughout tha review, staff noted at tha oaating and also in bmnso foro to <br />both Planning Coawisslim and council that the suistcr badrooai deck was to be <br />extended over tha existing grade level deck. This proved also to bo an <br />incorrect fact as cmly a ssmiII portion of tho upper laval dock extends over <br />tha grade laval deck. 17* of tha 20* deck extends over the natural ground <br />cover. Both applicant and applicants contractor never attaaptad to correct <br />staff in that ass\agtion nor was there any attaopt to correct staff in tha <br />final siano to tha Council. In tha original sat of plans, it appeared to <br />staff that tha second story bedroosi addition was to be built over tha new <br />garage addition. This was incorrect. This is why staff kept noting that <br />only tha oastor bedroosi suite upper deck was approved in this application. <br />The lakeside elevations shoved a system of layered decks that ware not <br />accounted for. <br />2S,319.5 a.f. <br />10,064.1 s.f. <br />10,973 s.f. <br />1,905 s.f. <br />737 a.f. <br />4,786 s.f. <br />or 38.41 <br />or 38.7li <br />As the upper level deck with tha 4* width was to bo included in hardcovaff <br />staff recheckad the 75*250* hardcover calculations against the applicsmtLi. <br />They are as followst <br />75*250' setback area <br />Existing hardcover par applicant's application <br />Existing hardcover per staff's review <br />House/Porch <br />Deck <br />Tennis Court <br />(total court 5,036 s.f. minus 250 s.f. for portions of court in the 250* <br />500* setback area and in road right*of*way) <br />Halks/Steps “ 260 s.f. <br />Bituminous Drive • 3,277 s.f. <br />(total drive 3,530 s.f. minus 253 s.f. located within 250-500 setback area <br />and road right-of-way) <br />Staff recommends holding to the 38.4' <br />applicant. <br />Proposed hardcover per staff's review <br />House <br />Deck <br />Tennis Court <br />Halks/Steps <br />Bitunimous Drive <br />hardcover total presented <br />plan -10,864 8 a if a or 38.4% <br />as 10,847 8 e e or 38.3% <br />3,145 8 • iff s <br />as 805 8ef V <br />K 4,786 8 e ^ a <br />as 192 Safe <br />«a 1,919 8ef e <br />% <br />§■ <br />I ^ <br />J