Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File 1493 <br />September 6, 1990 <br />Page 3 <br />Review of Hardcover Variance Application and After-the-Pact <br />LaJceshore Setback Variance <br />The applicant proposes construction of an entry addition to <br />the street side of the existing structure requiring no setback <br />variance. The entry addition consists of a 7' 11" x 6' porch <br />with roof and an enclosed entry room 11' x 6 The entry <br />structure will be placed over 84 s.f. of existing non-structural <br />hardcover for a net increase of 30 s.f. of total hardcover within <br />the 75-250' setback area. <br />The updated survey, Exhibit E, shows existing hardcover at <br />4,990.1 s.f. or 59.94%. The applicant proposes removal of <br />existing landscape areas underlain with plastic underliner and a <br />gravel parking area adjacent to the street lot line resulting in <br />total hardcover of 3,979.3 s.f. or 47.7%. Although the Planning <br />Commission's original recommendation required removal of <br />hardcover up to the allowed amount of an earlier 1982 review at <br />45%, it was noted that surveys of hardcover in that year did not <br />include landscape areas underlain with plastic. Sta t has. <br />already confirmed that in the 1982 review the expanded gravel <br />area was approved by Council to assist in the backing out <br />maneuver but Cook at your April meeting confirmed that based on <br />the location of the garage, the grave.' area could not serve as a <br />turnaround area but that the right-of-way of Casco Point Road was <br />used. The gravel area serves as only additional parking space. <br />The Planning Commission has recommended that this be removed as a <br />condition of the variance approval. <br />Planning Commission recommended ap;..vi>val of the after-the- <br />'"act average lakeshore setback variance for the lakeshore deck <br />consructed without a building perm.lt sometime in 1982. They <br />based their findings as follows: <br />1. Recent letters submitted by adjacent and most affected <br />neighbors site no problem with location of existing deck. <br />Review Exhibit K 1-2. <br />2. Second story j«rk does not interfere with the site line <br />views of the lake because of the sloping topographies within <br />the lakeshore yards.