Laserfiche WebLink
extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as <br />hereinafter regulated. <br />D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a <br />depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than twenty <br />square feet, fire excapes not to exceed a width of three <br />feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of six feet <br />above grade and open off-street parking. <br />2. Hardcover <br />Existing Proposed <br />0- 75, 120 s.f. (38) No change <br />75-250' 3703 s.f. (44.5%) 3703 s.f. (44.5%)* <br />250-500' 0 s.f. No change <br />* Proposed structural cantilever is over existing <br />rock/plastic <br />3. Note the unusual patterns of ownership (Exhibit G). It is <br />staff's interpretation that there is no encroachment into <br />average setback because adjacent lot to the north is vacant. <br />It is staff's opinion that no views enjoye-i by adjacent <br />lakeshore lots will be encroached upon by the upward <br />addition. <br />Discussion - <br />Please read the applicant's letter of April 20, 1988 (Exhibit E- <br />1), which describes the proposed variance request. Briefly, he <br />wishs to add a second story over the easterly 2/: of the house, <br />requiring technically a variance for additional sturctural <br />hardcover, and requiring a side setback variance for the addition <br />and its 2' overhang. <br />Note on the survey that a large portion of the Grandview Avenue <br />turnaround, which is maintained by the City, occurs within the <br />applicant's Lot 19, and has not been included in the hardcover <br />calculations. Staffs hardcover calculations include additional <br />minor areas of hardcover not included in the applicant's <br />calculations, but do include portions of the un-tr3veled Elmwood <br />Avenue right-of-way which appear to exist fuctionally as part of <br />the applicant's property. Because the additions are over various <br />items of existing hardcover, technically there is no increase in <br />the 44.5% hardcover already existing in the 75-250' setback zone. <br />The ownership pattern in the nieghborhood is quire unusual, in <br />that per Exhibit r, the property to applicant's inmediate north <br />is owned as lakeshore access by his neighbor to the southeast, <br />Beito. Because of this, technically staff feels there is no need <br />for a variance to the average lakeshore setback standard, and <br />functionally, none of the existing neighboring houses will have <br />views affected by this one story addition. <br />2 <br />