04-16-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicants have included their statement ofharaahip in Exhibit B. The applicants should olso be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Iisucs for Consideration ; 1. Massing is not an issue in this pn>posal in staff s opinion. The garage addition Is on the street side of the residence and the two adjacent properties w ill not be adversely affected by the addition. 2. The lot is undersized for the LR-1 It zoning di.strict. 3. The residence was built well before current zoning standards were adopted. 4. The applicant is proposing to remove structure on the lakeside of the property reducing hardcover in the 0-75' and a ptirtion of the driveway reducing the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area. 5. Can the applicant confirm that the portions of retaining walls to be removed arc not necessary for drainage or erosion control on the site? 6. Docs the Planning Commission have additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommcndalion ; The applicants hav e made a goi>d fiilih effort to reduce the size of the garage addition and bring the decks into conformity w ith the prior approvals. Although hardcover and lot coverage still will greatly exceed City standards, the applicants* proposal docs result in slight reductions of hardcover and lot coserage when compared to the legally existing levels. Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed reductions are adequate and appropriate given the stated hardships and the nature of the site. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of hardcover and lot coverage variances for the garage addition with removals as proposed. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table for further review ’ or further specific information, advising the applicant wliat other possible revisions will moke the application acceptable. 4. Other. HOl-2664 Stitch and Ktm Olson 3265 Carman Road t'ariancts 4/m PagtJ