Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Memo #1829 <br />August 31, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />75-250’ setback area = 19,000 s.f. <br />Allowed = 4,750 s.f. or 25% <br />Existing = 7,500 s.f. or 39.5% <br />Proposed = 7,265.9 s.f. or 38.2% (Addition of 160 s.f. of structural hardcover <br />and removal of 394.1 s.f. of nonstiucmral hardcover) <br />Total hardcover variance = 2,515.9 s.f. or 13.2% <br />The applicant proposes the removal of 84.4 s.f. of structural hardcover in the 0-75’ <br />setback area to offset the 160 s.f. of structural hardcover added in the 75-250’. In addition <br />applicant prqx>sed 331.5 s. f. of nonstructural hardcover removals consisting of plastic underliner <br />and 62.6 s.f. of concrete pavers. <br />Please review Exhibit L, former deck areas shown on the survey were installed prior to <br />1975 and received major repair or total replacement some time in 1991. The decks at the <br />lakeside and southwest comer of the house were not expanded on. The deck at the northwest <br />comer was expanded from 6’x20’ to 14’x20’. All structures meet the required setbacks. <br />Statement of Hardship Unique Findings or Practical Difficulties • please review Exhibits D, <br />E and Q <br />1. Total hardcover on the property has been reduced from 28.1 to 27%. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Applicant has proposed total removal of hardcover within the 0-75’ sednek area. <br />All structures either remodeled or expanded meet required setbacks. <br />The only variance sought by applicam is for hardcover excesses within the 75- <br />250’ setback. <br />5. Applicant has proposed the removal of 53% or 84.4 s.f. of structural hardcover <br />for 160 s.f. of new structural hardcover. <br />6. Applicam proposes the removal of 394.1 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover to offset <br />75.6 s.f. of new structural hardcover (84.4 - 160 = 75.6 s.f.) <br />\pplicam was asked to consider the removal of paved hardcover areas in the street yard. <br />Applicam noted need to retain secondary access for use of adjacem property ownm during <br />winter months at times of severe weather. Most northern access provides greater distance to <br />ascend hill to the south on WUdhurst Trail. Other paved walkways were questioned but <br />applicam advised they were needed either for access to the structures in question or pievenicd <br />erosion in heavy use areas. The Planning Commission members questxHied whether me plamers <br />or boxes themselves could be removed as long as the plastic underliner were to be removed.