Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1280 <br />June 15, 1988 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />existing, or a removal of about 1/5th of the pre-existing hardcover <br />percentage in the 75-250' zone. <br />Regarding structural hardcover, refer to the following table: <br />Structural Hardcover <br />Corrected <br />1st <br />Revised <br />Existing <br />Proposal <br />Proposal <br />0-75' (N) 1313 <br />s.f. <br />2140 s.f. <br />2134 s.f. <br />75-250' 637 <br />s.f. <br />722 s.f. <br />637 s.f. <br />0-75' (S) 0 <br />s.f. <br />0 s.f. <br />0 s.f. <br />1950 <br />s.f. <br />2862 s.f. <br />2771 s.f. <br />(+912 s.f.) (+821 s.f.) <br />This table indicates that in the 0-75' zone, hardly any of the <br />originally proposed structural hardcover has been eliminated. In the 75- <br />250' zone, the new proposal eliminates all the previously proposed <br />additional structural hardcover, leaving only the existing garage. <br />Since your last meeting, it appears that approximately 51 s.f. of <br />structural hardcover have been eliminated from the proposal. The current <br />proposal results in 42% more structural hardcover than exists now. <br />B. Basement Issue <br />Regarding the easements on the property, applicant has provided staff <br />with the 2 documents whi::h are noted as memorials on her Certificate of <br />Title. The first one is the easement referred to by Bill Franklin who <br />appeared at your last meeti• g. That easement was granted in 1948 when <br />applicant's property was sold by its original owner (who also apparently <br />owned property to the north on the point, and perhaps owned the entire <br />point). The sellers, Mr. & Mrs. Boxrud, reserved an easement over Lot 20 <br />so that they could continue to access their property on the point. <br />That easement is described as shown on Exhibit C. That easement is <br />for "driveway purposes" and would not be excluded from the applicants dry <br />buildable area for purposes of this application. There is some question of <br />the validity of that easement given that it does not describe which <br />properties are benefited by the easement, and only names the people who <br />are benefited. However, this easement probably has been and will continue <br />to be in effect to serve the various properties past applicant's property. <br />Determination of the validity of such an easement is not within the City's <br />purview at this time. <br />The second document provided is not an easement as such, but is a copy <br />of a mortgage agreement between 2 financial corporations, regarding the <br />sale of Lot 30, Baldur Park, and the description on which describes an <br />easement over applicants property. Interestingly, there is no document <br />filed against the title of applicants property that ever granted the <br />described easement to Lot 30. Because of that, this easement is also of <br />questionable validity. However, its language also discusses merely an <br />