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 ;,re -existing hardcover <br />percentage in the 75-250' cone. <br />Regarding structural hardcover, refer to the following table: <br />Structural Hardcover <br />Corrected <br />lot <br />Revised <br />Existing <br />Proposal <br />Pro�sal <br />0-75' (N) TTI3 s.f. <br />2140 s.f. <br />2134 s.f. <br />75-250' 637 s.f. <br />722 s.f. <br />637 s.f. <br />0-75' (S) 0 s.f:. <br />0 s.f. <br />0 s.f. <br />286� <br />2771 s.f. <br />(+912 s.f.) (+821 s.f.) <br />This table indicates that in the 0-75' zone, card ly any of the <br />originally propos d 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 />Sine your last meeting, it appears that approximately 91 s.f. of <br />structural hardcover have been eliminated from the proposal. Tn� current <br />proposal res ''s in 42% more structural hardcover than -xists now. <br />D. Rassn"t Issue <br />Reg& -ding the easements on the property, applica. provided staff <br />with the 2 documents which are noted as memorials on tier Certificate of. <br />Title. The first one is the easement referred to by Bill Franklin why, <br />appeared at your last meeting. That easement was granted in 19i8 when <br />applicant's property was sold by its original owner (who r lso apparently <br />owned property to the north on the point, and perhaps owned the entire <br />ooint). Tha sellers, Mr. i Mrs. Boxrud, reserved an easement over Lot 20 <br />o that they -ould continue to access their property on the point. <br />That easement is described as shown -)n Exhibit C. That easement 46 <br />for 'driveway purpose.' 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 pas' applicant's property. <br />Deteraination 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 su(,h, but is a copy <br />of a mortgage agreement between 2 financial corporations, regprding the <br />eale of Lot 30, Baldur Park, and the description on which describes an <br />"**sent over applic&nt.s pr cty. Interestingly, there is no document <br />filed against the title o Oplicants propert, that ever granted the <br />described *seem to Lot 30. Because of that, this easement is also of <br />questionable va--Jity. However, its language also discusses merely an <br />