Laserfiche WebLink
#2161 - Easle>‘ <br />Page 4 <br />but might not accomplish the same goals. This will at least place the drip line and its <br />immediate impacts within applicants ’ property . The setback to the neighbor’s new garage <br />to the west will be approximately 11.5 feet. <br />3.Please recall that all properties regardless of lot size are allowed up to 1,500 s.f. of lot <br />coverage by structures to include the house and garage. Placement of the garage will bring <br />applicants' property to 1,646 s.f (19.7%). an increase from 1.401 s.f existing (16.8%). Note <br />that their concept plan for the future would also end up at about 19.7%. Is there sufficient <br />justification for an increase abc>ve the 1.500 s.f lot coverage limit? <br />4.Is the 2.7% increase in 75-250' hardcov er justified? Does it make sense to reduce the size <br />of the driveway in order to minimize the increa.se? How does the positive impact of the <br />future concept plan afl'ect Planning Commission’s view of this property? <br />5.Is the proposed garage reconstruction consistent with other approvals granted recently in this <br />neighborhood? Note that it will contain a lower level shop and upper level office. As a <br />detached structure, this space is cannot contain living space, i.e. cannot have plumbing and <br />cannot have a kitchen area (neither are proposed). <br />Staff Recommendation <br />The existing garage needs to be replaced and the proposed street setback yields offstrcct parking <br />which is definitely necessarv’ in this neighborhood. The drainage and tree preservation goals of the <br />minimal side setback should be weighed against the visual impact as well as the impact on <br />neighboring properties. The lot coverage variance is relative to the small size of the lot, less than <br />1/5 acre in area. The hardcover increase should be considered both in the "interim" context as well <br />as the concept plan context. The height issue should be consisted in the context of the existing house <br />as well as in the context of a future attached dwelling. <br />If Plaiming Commission concludes that each of the variances proposed are justified, a <br />recommendation for approval, or conditional approval, would be in order. <br />Options for Action <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Recommend approval as proposed. <br />Recommend approval with specific conditions. <br />Table for further information (specify) <br />Recommend denial (state reasons). <br />Other