Laserfiche WebLink
F MINUTES OF THE HEGULAH OhONO COUNCIL MtciiNL - muvjUCs i(#i0) ZONING FILE #1665 <br />1424 BALDUR PARK RD <br />VARIANCES <br />- THOMAS MCCARTHY <br />Gerhardson reviewed <br />Commission's recommendation. <br />tne application and P laming <br />Mabusth p . <br />Planning Comm^ <br />was a walkway w^ <br />Commission hac <br />existing deck, <br />app11 cant had <br />Scheme A reduces <br />zone. <br />sented the applicant's plans as presented to -he <br />-,ion noting that as originally presented. there <br />th an overhang. She explained that the Planning <br />no pro' lem with tne repair or rr-. 1 acement of the <br />but t the addition was too ambitious and the <br />not pro id acceptable hardships. The original <br />the percentage of hardcover by 8% in the 75-250' <br />Michial Mularoni, applicant's contractor, explained his <br />design process and how he arrived at the different variations. <br />He felt that by adding the second garage as depicted in Scheme A, <br />with overhang walkway to house in the middle to minimize the <br />rafter height and thereby reduce the visual impact. He reviewed <br />one of their concerns which was the covered walk and the need to <br />provide access to the principal structure for emergency purposes. <br />Candace Rowlette clarified that the Planning Commission <br />originally tabled the applicant's request because there was only <br />one pr.posal which was inadequate. Applicant then came back and <br />asked to reopen the request, and it ended up being denied. <br />Jabbour declared that he was at that last Planning <br />Commission and noted that one Commissioner's reason for denial <br />was that non—structura1 hardcover was being replaced with <br />structural hardcover. <br />Mabusth reiterated that there is <br />percentages of hardcover of 7.9%. <br />a total reduction <br />Jabbour felt that the garage could be added to the original <br />garaget centering the garage door between the old and new, and <br />felt that the rafters wouldn't necessarily have to be extremely <br />high. <br />Goetten noted that the lot is 50' wide at the ^^ad. <br />therefore the garage and proposed addition brings it up to 31 4 <br />which covers a major portion of the lot. The large tree next to <br />the garage covers a largo portion of the remaining setback. She <br />noted that she could not approve the proposal as is. <br />Jabbou** remarked that a double garage is typically 2a wide <br />and the scheme proposed Is 2S'. <br />Callahan remarked that the hardship of having only a one ca*” <br />garage Is not enough to approve the proposal. <br />..... .