Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />5. To permit one off-street parking space to be located 3* from the adjacent property line <br />where off-street parking in “R" districts is required to be set back 10'. [Section 10.61, <br />Subdivision S (A)j <br />Plaoolng Commission Review and Recommendation of August 19,2002 and September 16, <br />The Planning Commission, on September 16*, established development parameters that would <br />allow redevelopment of the property while maintaining adequate setbacks to the lakeshore The <br />Planning Commission also included review of the driveway access to this property and adjacent <br />properties, and concluded the proposed encroachment of the .shared driveway was not <br />appropriate. <br />Summary of the Planning Commission recommendation <br />1. The adjustment to allow a I’ shift for the house to allow a 7.5 ’ side setback, with a <br />1.5 ’ overhang be approved. <br />2. The house and overhang are permitted to be located with a 50 ’ setback to the <br />lakeshore. <br />3. The house shall not be located closer to the north property line than the average <br />distance of the two adjacent residences, which is equal to meeting the same setback as <br />the existing house. <br />The prow addition to the plans docs oa| allow the house to expand beyond the size that was <br />approved with the variances in February. The Planning Commission recommendation would not <br />permit the 4.5 ’ prow, as requested with the new application. The Planning Commission based <br />their recommendation ou the following findings: <br />A. This property does require lot area and lot width variances. Part of the review of lot area <br />and lot width variances is to review if the property is capable of accommodating the proposed <br />development. In this case, due to the decreased width of the driveway and its inconsistency with <br />the alignment of adjacent houses the Planning Commission cannot '. ommend approval of the <br />application. <br />B. The primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be <br />located approximately 6 ’ into a shared driveway. There are two properties west of this property <br />that require crossing this property for their only access. Reducing the width of the driveway from <br />the existing 22 ’ to 16 ’ will make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than the current <br />situation. <br />C. The two adjacent houses are located at approximately the same rear/street setback as the <br />existing house. If this house location is approved, it would set a standard for where new houses <br />along this driveway are built, and future requests from licigi.boring properties to narrow the <br />driveway could be expected. <br />D. The decreased width of the drivew •' will contribute to potential snow storage problems. <br />There is little space to store snow along thi. treet because of the steep grade up to North Shore <br />Drive to the north. Snow storage to the soutl. s restricted by the location of the houses. <br />E. The Zoning Code requires two parking sulls on a residential property. One proposed <br />stall is an interior parking space and the second would be located east of the house. The <br />reduction in driveway width also makes backing of a vehicle from the garage stall difficult. 18 ’ <br />Mark Welch <br />362 r.Ofth Shore Drive <br />Page 2 3f4 <br />4