Laserfiche WebLink
7oning File #1473 <br />February 7, 1990 <br />Page 5 <br />Additional Comments & Planning Commission Recommendation - <br />List of Additional Exhibits - <br />Exhibit K - Planning Commission Notice of Action <br />Exhibit L - Bear Correspondence 2/5/90 <br />Exhibit M - Hardcover Fact Sheet 75-250' Setback Area <br />Exhibit N - Consents of Adjacent Neighbors <br />Exhibit 0 - Proposed Agreement by Applicant <br />Exhibit P - Staff Sketch <br />Exhibit Q - Amended Plan <br />The Planning Cor.mibsion denied all variances requested by <br />applicant for current illegal deck. Planning Commission <br />recommended that applicant be allowed to reconstruct a deck that <br />would extend no closer to the lakeshore than the previous deck <br />(extend 14' in front of front line of residence). Review Exhibit <br />P, this deck would encroach no more than approximately 2+' beyond <br />the average lakeshore setback line. In addition, the revised <br />deck could not extend into the required 10' side setback yard and <br />held hardcover at the prebent 57.2% level. Since that i^eeting, <br />staff *i3s spoken with Stuart Bear, applicant's attorney, and <br />recomm'inded that with the revised plan realigning the= lakeshore <br />deck per Planning Commission's directives, that it would be <br />appropriate to also show reductions in existing hardcover, within <br />the 75-250' zone. Mr. Bear was advised that the 57.2% <br />recommended by the Planning Commission would be found too <br />excessive. Mr. Bear agreed to discuss my recommendation with his <br />client and has submitted an amended plan for Council's review and <br />consideration (review Exhibit Q). <br />Review of Amended Plan - <br />The amended proposal shows the deck at the present <br />configuration with the portions within the 0-75' being removed. <br />As a result, there is no longer any hardcover within the 0-75' <br />setback area. The current deck as amended would extend <br />approximately 16' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. <br />Review Exhibit P, The Planning Commission's recommendation asked <br />that the revised deck hold to the original setback line. The <br />revised proposal still shows the deck at the 9' side setback, <br />which was against the recommendation of the Planning Commission. <br />Applicant proposes a reduction of 10.1% hardcover within the 75- <br />250' setback area (please review Exhibits G, H2 and M). <br />Landscape areas with underlying plastic totally some 1,681 s.f. <br />of hardcover is to be removed. Applicant shows no reductions <br />within the 250-500' setback area, now at 64.77% hardcover. The <br />majority of that hardcover is landscape areas with underlying <br />plastic and bituminous paving.