10-28-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f: I' f' i- i- •r^•J. i,,. i r*. t •' Zoning File #1608 August 8, 1991 Page 2 of 3 Discussion The survey indicates that applicants own the adjacent residence to the south (3005 Casco Point Road)# on a separate riparian lakeshore tax parcel. They also own the non>riparian lot upon which the tennis court sits. These two extraneous lots, because they are separate tax parcels, have not been included in the hardcover calculations. The hardcover review and site inspection by staff determined that applicants submitted hardcover worksheet had omitted significant areas of driveway, sidewalk, and the water surface area of the pool (this application was submitted in January, prior to the pool hardcover policy revision by Council). Existing 75-250' hardcover is 23.8%. Proposed hardcover without removals is 35.9%. The existing driveway serving applicant's property is fair'y large# however, that driveway serves both of applicant s residences, and is mostly located in the 250-500* zone. Other than driveway areas, there is very little nonstructural hardcover which can be removed to compensate for the hardcover excesses. The average setback encroachment of 25' is defined by the neighboring adjacent houses, one of which is owned by applicant. The top of the fence surrounding the pool will be approximately 7' above existing grade at a distance approximately 40* lakeward of the existing deck. The neighboring residence to the north is offset approximately 140* from the proposed pool and is relatively high in elevation compared to the pool. The applicant's house at 3005 Casco Point Road, has some lakeviews across the pool area already partially screened by existing trees and vegetation. Lot coverage will be slightly over the 15% limit when the pool is included in the calculation. Issues to Consid«.;r 1.Will any neighboring properties have their existing views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of this pool/patio/retainlng wall system? Is there sufficient hardship shown to justify approval of the proposed 25' average setback encroachment? (The pool will be 105' from the shoreline at its closest point). 2.Are there any potential structural removals or reductions which could keep this property within the 15% limit? Is there sufficient hardship to grant a variance for lot coverage?