Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Planning Con:\fniss ion <br />Michael P. GaEfroti, AssisLanL Zoning Administrator <br />November 13, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: #874 , Duane Barth and Mrs. D. Johnstone, 18 IH Shadyv;ood Koati <br />- Variance <br />Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acr*‘ <br />Application - hot area/Lot width variance to create a buildable lot <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - <br />B - <br />r% <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />H <br />Application <br />Plat Map <br />Property Owners r,ist <br />Survey <br />Applicants Proposal and Sketch <br />Plat Map of Neighborhood Existing Development <br />10 Year Assessment Record <br />Applicant's Letter of November 11, 1984 <br />This appl icatlon was tabled at your October meeting pending a number of <br />items which have now been submitted. <br />1. Applicants hardcover/development proposal (see Exhibit E) . For <br />Lot 21, app 1 icant preposes a 75-250 ' 'nardcover of 22.7% us ing a porous <br />paving block driveway (no technical inf orm»it ion on the product has <br />been submitted). Sidewalks and decks are not shown on tlie proposal. <br />The existing garage v;ouid be removed. <br />For Lot 22, with the existing house, a proposed addition, and porous <br />pavement dri 'eway, without decks or sidewalks, the proposed hardcover <br />is 16.4%. <br />Both proposals appear to meet hardcover teguiremonts, although <br />further information on the porous pavement would be helpful. Also, <br />without any permits tecpjired for paving driveways, will we be able to <br />prevent this from being paved in the future? Would you recommend that <br />driveway paving permits be required on all lakeshore properties <br />sometime in the future? <br />2. Assessment record for t’ne past 10 years. (See Exhibit G) . It <br />appears from the t.ix history of the property that at least since 1977 <br />the two lots have car r ied a roughly egu i valent taxable market value for <br />the land portion, rather than an incremental value for the vacant lot. <br />According to the previous assossor, thes*’ properties would have been <br />scheduled for ’"eview again in 1985 and the vacant lot would likely have <br />been placed on an incremental value scale based o.i cur <'urrent zoning <br />policies. (W’ith the i ncr<.enenta I scale, and these lots cons i l'*recl as a <br />single building site, tile first X feet would valued .il. a nigiier rate <br />than the additional footage).