03-22-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<<03-2928 • 1972 ShadyM-ood March 11,2004 Page 2 Backgrouod In August 2003, Planning Commission advised the applicant that the project as presented was not acceptable, and suggested that applicant revise his plans. Great concern was expressed about adding a second story that will be so close to the house to the north. It was noted specifically that encroachment ofboth side setbacks was not reasonable, and applicant needs to keep one side open for access alongside the house. The proximity of the garage addition to the neighbors garage to the south was also a concern. There was some support for encroacliing the 0>7S' zone with garage in order to maintain an open south side. Applicant has considered a variety of options for expansion of the house itself and has given up for now on those additions. He has provided two options for a detached 20x20' 2-stall garage, and is requesting to be able to build a lO'xlO' deck on the lake side of the house, 42' from the lake at its closest point. Plan A is applicants preferred option. It places a detached side-loading garage 13' from the house, S' from the north lot line and 7' from the street lot line. It opens to the south, and leaves an area of about 20' x 25’ for on-site parking and maneuvering. Plan A results in 0-75' hardeover of 26.6% and 75-250' hardcover of 57.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2378 s.f. or 34.4% of the entire lot. Plan B is an alternate suggested by staff to reduce the hai dcover. It places the garage 1 O' from the house, 5' from the north lot line and 9.8' from the street lot line. It opens to the street, and leaves adepth of 10'- 1 8' in front of the garage for parking, and includes a 20'x 1 O' side apron for additional parking. This plan leaves the entire south 15* of the lot in yard area. Plan B results in 0-75' hardcover of31.3% and 75-250' hardcover of 3 8.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 228S s.f. or 33.0% of the entire lot Plan A provides a parking layout that would easily allow 2 large vehicles to be parked outside the garage without hanging into the street. Plan B would allow for complete on-site parking for one smaller vehicle and one larger vehicle. Visually, the plans result in very similar character. I believe the applicant is more likely to maintain an attractive pervious lawn with Plan B. In Plan A, the proposed grass area streetward of the garage could easily tend to become a storage or paiking area.. Strucniral Coverage . Stmctural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly 1490 s.f as allow ed by code. The result is that 21.5% of the lot will be covered by structure. Hardcover. Hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250' zones with either plan will be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The trade-offbetween plans is that the hardcover is greater in the 0-75' zone with Plan B, but its overall hardcover is 93 s.f less than Plan A. W ith the new proposals, the main entry to the residence will remain as the door at the S W comer of the house with the existing stoop. Applicant still proposes to add non-hardcover walkways and non-lined eos- i-J