09-23-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. To permit one ofT>street parking space to be located 3* from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in "R” districts is required to be set back 10*. (Section 10.61, Subdivision S (A)) PianolBg Commission Review and Recommendation of August 19,2002 and September 16, 2002: . The rianning Commission, on September 16'*', established development parameters that would allow redevelopment of the property while maintaining adequate setbacks to the lakeshore The Planning Commission also included review of the driveway access to this property and adjacent properties, and concluded the proposed encroachment of the shared driveway was not appropriate. Summary of the Planning Commission recommendation 1. The adjustment to allow a I’ shift for the house to allow a 7.5’ side setback, with a 1.5 ’ overhang be approved. 2. The house and overhang are permitted to be located with a SO’ setback to the lakeshore. 3. The house shrlt not be located closer to the north property line than the average distance of the two adjacent residences, which is equal to meeting the same setback as the existing house. The prow addition to the plans does Qot allow the house to expand beyond the size that was approved with the variances in February. The Planning Commission recommendation would not permit the 4.5 ’ prow, as requested with the new application. The Planning Commission based their recommendation on the following findings; A. This property does require lot area and lot width variances. Part of the review of lot area and lot width variances is to review if the property is capable of accommodating the proposed development. In this case, due to the decreased width of the driveway and its inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the application. B. The primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be located approximately 6’ into a shared driveway. There are two properties west of this propert>' that require crossing this property for their only access. Reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22 ’ to 16’ w ill make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than the current situation. C. The two adjacent houses are located at approximately the same rear/street setback as the existing house. If this house location is approved, it would set a standard for where new bouses along this driveway are built, and future requests from neighboring properties to narrow the driveway could be expected. D. The decreased width of the driveway will contribute to potential snow storage problems. There is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Snow storage to the south is restricted by the location of the houses. E. The Zoning Code requires two parking stalls on a residential property. One proposed stall is an interior parking space and the second would be located east of the house. The reduction in driveway width also makes backing of a vehicle from the garage stall difficult. 18* •2SI'Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Pige2of4