Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning vile 11280 June 15, 1988 Page 3 of 3 easemert for driveway purposes, hence neither of the two easements discussed in applicants chain of title have a significant effect on this application. They m�j have a significant effect in the future development of properties to the ,forth of applicants property. Note that one of Mr. Franklin's concerns was that applir-Ant +ould remove gravel or hardsurface from the area Franklin current s for access to his properties. The fact is, applicant cannot lega emove hardcover existing outside her property boundaries, and probably ..uuld not remove hardcover within her property that is used by any easement holders. The current proposal does not indicate that any removals which would be detrimental to any potential easement holders are proposed. Staff a adatio, Staff notes again thAt the magnitude of the proposed decks is of prime concern. Most of the 3' narrowing of the deck at the lakeside of the house was taken up by additional stairway located in the same general area. Staf f would suggest that a deck of no more t�• ^ 1' in width be a 1 lowed on the lakeside of the house, with the stairwa a' ocated to the end of the douse and incorporated into the new deck strL re at that location. Since the setback between garage and house now does not need a variai:e, the, requested variances are as follows: 1. Additional structure in 0-75' zone. 2. 30.0% hardcover in 0-75' zone. 3. 36.9• hardcover in 75-250' zone (25% allowed). Staff would again ask Planning commission to review Exhibit J, and note that the revised proposal which requests 31.7% overall hardcover on the property, is ir the high range of percentages allowed in variances in similar situatit.ns. Again, consider the visual and enviromental impact of this application in relation to the property owners rights. P C. • to - ZQ - 0 9- .13 VM 4 Feot. / 46A N r- �k "0tf. QRIOW/an.. �gpa,�.�;,j