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