Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1465 <br />July 2,1990 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Planning Commission Recommendation - <br />This current proposal had been referred to the Planning <br />Commission because it was revised since their prior review.At <br />their June 1990 meeting.Planning Commission in general <br />recommended denial of the increase in hardcover to accommodate <br />the loop driveway,and advised applicant to live within the <br />previously approved hardcover, whatever that percentage and <br />square footage might be, with staff to verify those previous <br />approval conditions. <br />Although the Planning Commission Notice from the June <br />meeting indicates approximately 6,900 s.f.was the original <br />approved overall square footage, the assumptions made by both <br />staff and Mr. Wenkus as to what had been missing from the <br />calculations were both incorrect, and staff believes the original <br />overall approvals in concept and intent were for 6,841.5 s.f. <br />Fence Proposal - <br />Applicant proposes to construct a 6' high fence along the <br />street lot line, with brick posts approximately I'xl’, spaced <br />approximately 8‘ apart, with iron vertical rails between them. <br />Planning Commission at their November 20, 1989 meeting voted 4-1 <br />for approval of the fence, with the notation that the fence would <br />be placed inside the property along the length of the street lot <br />line. <br />Because West Ferndale Road is not a "major thoroughfare", <br />zoning code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) would only allow a <br />3ij' high fence in this location. Applicants' wish tu note that <br />the proposed decorative fence will replace a 6' high stockade <br />fence that previously existed at that same location. <br />Discussion - <br />There appears to be no question that the original hardcover <br />square footages were calculated inaccurately, and dealing with <br />the raw numbers is nightmarish. However from a conceptual <br />standpoint, the hardcover issue is relatively clear. The <br />applicant previously traded away driveway hardcover under the <br />false assumption that he could replace it with gravel and it <br />would not be considered hardcover. Also, applicant removed the <br />circular deck during construction, assuming he had the right to <br />replace it when construction was completed, which is incorrect.