07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Coyincil Action continued Page 2 July 2. 1996' Zoning File #2134 R^n Albrecht. 1810 Shadywood Road Planning Commission on June 17 voted 3 in favor, 4 against on a motion to recommend approval. No additional motions were forthcoming. Analysis of Planning Commission Recommendation It appears that the members of the Planning Commission voting against the motion for approval, considered the application in its historic context. Briefly, the property in 1984 contained a small residence with no driveway, and only a detached garage on the adjacent (otherwise vacant) commonly-owned lot to the north. In 1984 variances were granted to allow a house on the lot to the north, and the previous owner of applicant's property was granted approval to construct additions and a "grassed paver" driveway, all meeting the 25%, 75-250’ hardcover limit. The previous owner then paved the driveway, resulting in hardcover excesses which were ultimately granted an after-the-fact variance in 1991 for 5,080 s.f. of hardcover. Mr. Albrecht's current proposal is to reduce the existing 75-250' hardcover from 5,037 s.f. (•4? 5%) down to 4,832 s.f. (41.7%). A 180 s.f. portion of the existing house is in the 0-75’ zone, as is the 135 s.f. lakeshore stairw'ay. This comprises 315 s.f. or 4.9% hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Bringing the lakeshore stairway landing into compliance would likely reduce this to approximately 280 s.f. or 4.3%. Two items in the 1991 after-the-fact variance approval granted to previous owner Steve Tibbetts, apparently had some impact on Planning Commission's recommendation: 1. 2. A finding in Resolution 2955 that "The Planning Commission finds that existing drive provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a busy County road." A condition stating that "The City will approve no further encroachment of the principal structure (this includes decks) within the lakeshore yard." Lakeshore Stairway Reconstruction An additional facet of this application is that the applicant replaced his pre-existing lakeshore stairway within the last five years without a building permit. The stairway system is partially nonconforming in that it contains a 6’ x 13 ’ landing parallel to the shoreline, technically not in compliance with the Code because it exceeds 4' in width and comprises 135 s.f. of hardcover where a compliant stairway would be approximately 90-100 s.f. in area. Planning Commission ’s iMay 20 recommendation to deny, included a recommendation that the applicant work with staff to bring the lakeshore stairway into compliance. Planning Commission's June 17 action gave staff no further specific direction on this.