Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1621 <br />March 11, 1991 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />0-75' <br />75-250’ <br />250-500' <br />Entire Lot <br />Existing <br />8.9 % <br />22.1% <br />76.1% <br />Jl.9% <br />Plan A Plan B Plan C Allowed <br />8.1% <br />38.9% <br />61.7% <br />28.4% <br />7.0% <br />38.9% <br />61.7% <br />28.0% <br />7.1% <br />40.6% <br />23.3% <br />25.2% <br />0% <br />25% <br />30% <br />15.2% <br />In the 0-75' zone, the applicants are extending the 8' wide <br />deck the entire length of the house, and, to break up the <br />lakeshore wall of the house, proposing to install a 10'x8' <br />portico roofed at the second story (see elevation views). While <br />applicants would likely agree to resolution language that <br />prohibits enclosure of this portico/porch, its intent c'nd <br />function is still to be as structural detail in the 0-75' zon';. <br />The additional deck behind the garage and the room <br />expansions eastward from the existing house both yield an <br />increase in 75-250' hardcover. Applicants have stated to stai:f <br />that if the attached garage addition is approved, they could <br />remove the existing detached garage and gravel parking area, <br />yielding a significant hardcover decrease in the 250-500' zone. <br />The new plan exhibits no change in the previously proposed <br />driveway or sidewalk layout. <br />In reviewing this application. Planning Commission may wish <br />to consider the following issues: <br />- Is the portico with roof and pillars in the 0-75' zone <br />necessary for aesthetic purposes, and does that justify <br />granting of a variance? <br />- Can some of the deck area in the 0-75' zone be eliminated? <br />- How necessary is the 75-250' deck behind the garage? <br />- Is there any hardship to grant a 2' side setback variance <br />for that deck? <br />- Is the removal of the detached garage and parking areas a <br />reasonable tradeoff for the hardcover additions in the 250- <br />500' zone? <br />Staff Recooimendatlon - <br />If Planning Commission finds that sufficient justification <br />exists to recommend approval of Plan C, then a recommendation for <br />approval would be appropriate. If Planning Commission so <br />desires, approval could be conditioned on elimination of specific <br />aspects of Plan C. If Planning Commission feels that Plan C is <br />not appropriate and can't be easily revised to meet Planning <br />Commission's goals for this property, then a recommendation for <br />denial or a tabling of the application would be in order. If the <br />request is tabled, Planning Commission should give applicants <br />direction for revising their plan. <br />.J