Laserfiche WebLink
5-: <br />i'-. <br />i ’f <br />■ <br />1. <br />i:i <br />? ‘ <br />I <br />i <br />I'?'.,,;- <br />.<..!,;i <br />Zoning File #1746 <br />July 9, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />Issues for Consideration <br />A.Applicants propose .05% reduction in 0-75' setback area. <br />Review Exhibits E and I. Are there other areas of existing <br />improvements that can *^e removed? <br />B.37% hardcover exists and 37.5% is proposed within the 75- <br />250' setback area. Are there areas of existing hardcover <br />within the 75-250* setback area that can also be reduced? <br />a) Removal of non-essential portions c' paved drive? <br />b) 640 s.f. of landscape area underlain with plastic^ <br />c) Paved walkways or other accessory improvements <br />d) Others. <br />Any condition of approval must include the request that all <br />hardcover improvements scheduled for removal be completed prior to the <br />footing inspection for new construction. <br />Additional CoBBaents and Pl.mning Ccwnission Recommendation <br />August S, 1992 <br />The applicant advised that the screened porch structure <br />originally planned to be relocated in the 75-250' setback area on the <br />property would now be removed from the site. Applicant also owns Lot <br />13 to the immediate south of the subject property (review Exhibit C). <br />Mr. Lowe had originally planned to relocate structure on Lot 13 but <br />was advised that because property did not contain a principal <br />structure, an accessory structure would not be allowed. As a result, <br />hardcover within the 75-250' setback area remains at 37%. <br />Planning Cotranission members could not accept the trade-cff of new <br />structural hardcover for the removal of non-structura1 hardcover <br />within the lakeshore protected area. Applicant advised that he would <br />be willing to reduce hardcover within the 75-250* setback area but <br />members advised this would still not minimize the Impact of the <br />increase of structural hardcover within the 0-75' area. Members asked <br />if Lots 12 and 13 could be legally combined thereby reducing the <br />percentages of excess hardcover. Applicant advised that Lot 13 is an <br />independent buildable lot and has been assessed for a sewer unit. <br />Applicant asked if a lot line rearrangement would be an acceptable <br />alternatnative but members advised because of the location of the tennis <br />court within tne shared lot line, the lot line rearrangement would <br />nave a negligible impact on the hardcover issue. Members strongly <br />encouraged applicant to consider the porsibility of a legal lot <br />combination based on existing comprehensive use of property. The <br />majority of tl»o Planning Commissior members voted denial of the <br />application as proposed based on the finding that hardships presented <br />by applicant were not acceptable. The minority opinion felt the <br />hardships stated by the applicant were acceptable and felt that <br />additional reductions in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area <br />would have an lmp.'*ct on the overall application.