08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes

Home Browse Search

Thomas L. McCarthy, Background June 16, 1993 Page 3 I would argue that the property owner should be allowed the right to have the 250 s f. overage irKhis 250-500’ zone as long as he agrees to reduce tl^25% allowance in his 75-250 ’, by me equivalent 250 s.f. This in essence results in3-24% hardcover limit for his 75-250 ’ zon'^36% limit for his 250-500’ zone, an^^same amount of overall hardcover he would ha\^ad under the standard allowanpe^^ but a greater proportion _of it k fimher from the lake_^ Obviously, we would not allow a situ^dnmat would work the opposite direction, i.e. increasing hardcover nearer the fekeip^change for less hardcover m a zone further from tlie lake. This would be opp^^i^ntent of our "hardcover zones philosophy. If Council would agrep^his hardc^U)olicy interpretation, we would see a few less "nuisance" hardcover variances each>ar, and cause less aggravation for • property owners and pf. ^ ^ ^ clarification of the hardcover ordinancp^athci w.^.. --------» — ^\ ui standpoint, w^h certainly put in place review proceduiH,^ t^^t future problems should not occur. /X^^iance of this police will also allow staff to, in genera>4ga hardcover baWiKina for any lakeshore property requesting a pennit, such that a praRW. /STd hardcover -credit" in a zone nearer the lake can legitimately use that c^t tn a zone further from the lake, without requiring a variance. Recommendation Council has the option of revising the shoreland lot width definition to add die requirement for meeting the width standard at the street setback line as well as at the shoreline and at the lake setback line. However, I don ’t see that this will impact the McCarthy case, since it came in under the current ordinance, I would stroncly recommend tliai ihc Council accept the concept of "balancing" hardcover whereby hardcover unused in zones nearer that lake can be leg.innalely used in zones further from the lake without a variance. ^ cCfVvWV y A ^ cA'oo^ (if O