06-19-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; 1 -■mmmsmmigpp^ ': ’■■ ■• ■ ■ ■•^v>--'v- . :^V «r. :.v-' h7.:>f^y"- ■:'/■':■■ v:-y:yrnyM li mm ? *•■ , : : •■-.■jge-ISa iip»!s®afi*| fc^lfliiM SiiKft? ^^^.;v::;7 IMii la m '1. rv"-a^a:ihr -m ||^^^^i?:V7;^^*,T ' ' ■ ■ : -al ■■■^K;n“:;:^77:'» a-w:^fw*mu ;; V- a:.v-;;| mrmrnmm:mm lil«i ^mrrr^-^r’.mv55^a«-i7 ‘aW^-7aai7raaafcaai ^ .! ••.- iV- ':7' V -U a- hrmmmmrm ■;:^V .r..7 • a-'a •: ■ ■ ■■•/ • •• r'.... -V-'' ■ ,- -.< :..V,*-;r ••, >7 r ■■’•■ ■■' •■■••a- : a. ■ :’ ■ ■ . a^A< 7-. .. . .-. p-f' r-r-r^^rsry, y rv^-yy •'at-:- ,•V II • • ■»/ • • » V., ' ■• ...-.• ?. *•!rr’m m W.:yr-;r:rM^"kHIPbaaaapjfewS-sIH .:^PiWiii•p; a • •=■-^>-•■5 P;V:.--p-';-.- • Vvp.ii . ti:- a a7 ■.■: a .i'i a-wmmwm,:«aW'Sm|Pl|H^7 ' Wymm^ R - iflp:i: ; -a ‘:77 a.v; aJ P:‘M ^ ■ a-.-j'a-:^'■■7" *■■ a i-1IIMpI K-; "A] :7V;P.:is^-’a-a. :,• iSSI[^a77:^^ia-'-a:va*-a IRp^i7%‘aa-^7-PyaIpNa^aa, a >y;'a?;:;-..; t,; 7^1 a■a^^: , r. :;a ■Liaaaaiim %a.rr-^-:-r’::4^■yyrarrm WA mgy 7/ai^ P i MAmg^--■ ■ ■ ':■.■y->y..y' jmm ik ^r “a#Sf^ ■,V-V\I1P=...E *.. -..i^ .:.K-;^-^/a\: '.:P>:« . _ ,.. ...... ..... ................................. ^•"tfefeai.vi|i B»||^► aaaaj«Bte:, -:urrent proposal does require a variance to the k. This is an oddly configured lot# and staff has hat although it is a lakeshore lot, a 30' front 1 be required from all lot lines abutting the right- aple Avenue". The proposed garage is 15' from the le. Additionally, one could argue that the garage is ouse and the front lot line, and requires a variance the other hand, codes do technically allow a garage 3m a street lot line for lakeshore lots, see code 3, subd. 9d attached). Staff's interpretation is ice is needed for this garage configuration. current proposal is an attempt by the applicant to necessity for cutting trees, while also minimizing r. Since a portion of Maple Avenue was recently is unlikely that the remaining public portion of e will be significantly upgraded, hence the 15’ le right-of-way will continue to appear as a setback from the actual travelled driveway. Also, during the garage will be fairly well screened by existing The visual impact of this garage in the neighborhood be minimal. that lot coverage by buildings with this proposal than 10%, and total square footage of accessory tprints will be about 1750 s.f., in both respects accessory structure development standards recently by the Planning Commission for adoption by the applicant has Indicated he will be applying for the tnditional use permit to allow continued guesthouse lace above the garage. Applicant has requested that lission separate the issue of the existing guesthouse 9 proposed detached garage variances, in order that the garage construction as soon as possible, aware that should the guesthouse conditional use e granted, plumbing would have to be removed from e. •wing the site, the current proposal is clearly more from a hardcover standpoint than the original age uphill from the existing garage. The current 3ws much of the existing hardcover to be removed and ficient use of the existing driveway areas. ECPJ e of the lot is such that the impact of this arage space does not cause hardcover excesses, nor Bd the proposed standards under consideration for uctures. ndation - ould recommend approval of the proposed garage mm mm je;.--. ir m:■rhl v\ * ■ AM ■r mmm ./•v.^mm yyy 17S 7i;; ■ m-r : •■■ "S‘ \j.- :T’- r: r:rv:-'-:mf ■y-.^-r , ■ ■■■■ ■■:./■ yy aiiiiy m--ii iC^Mrau ’‘m mm xry»i: ^-i: i i7AV7i:^ii#^::AmM :■■■■■ y }'yy {y- i . •■■a ■■ ■ -r aa .. ^ •:•■■ ^' .-'y- ■: A : ■; ■A..a7A7A*^7«;A ; '7 -Vv ■ • v. A''A |.::7 ;» i < .Miii h m:mm-> :'-^A'.A: ............; •• • -. • 1» : A>,t V-