Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/25/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1280 June 15, 1988 Page 3 of 3 easement for driveway purposes, hence neither of the two easements discussed in applicants chain of title have a significant effect on thin, application. They may have a significant effect in the future development of properties to the north of applicants property. Note that one of Mr. Franklin's concerns was that applicant would remove gravel or hardsurface from the area Franklin currently uses for access to his properties. The fact is, applicant cannot legally reriove hardcover existing outside her property boundaries, and probably should not remove hardcover within her property that is used by any easement holders. The current proposal does not indicate that any removals which wou:id be detrimental to any potential easement holders are proposed. Staff Recommendation Staff notes again that the magnitude cf the proposed decks is of prime concern. Most of the 3' narrowing of the dsck at the lakeside of the house was taken up by additional stairway located in the same general area. Staff would suggest that a deck of no more Lhan 4' in width be allowed on the lakeside of the house, with the stairway :located to the end of the house and incorporated into the new deck structure M} that location. Since the setback between garage and house new does not need a variance, the requested variances are as follows: 1. Additional structure in 0-75' zone. 2. 30.0% hardcover in 0-75' zone. 3. 38.9% hardcover in 75-250' zone (25% allowedi. Staff would ag-Ain ask Planning Commission to review Exhibit J, and note that the revised proposal which requests 31.7% overall hardcover on the property, is in tre high range of percentages allowed in variances in similar situations. Pgain, consider the visual and enviromental impact of this application in relation to the property owners rights. i