01-13-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1682 September 6# 1991 Page 3 of 3 Issues to Consider 1. Is there any reasonable justification to allow a garage of any size to be located 2-3' from the rear and side lot lines? A garage 0-750 s.f. in area would normally require 10' setbacks from the side and rear lot lines for this lakeshore lot. A garage 751-1000 s.f. would require 15’ setbacks . 2. Because the lot is only 0.28 acres in area, is there any justification to grant a variance to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1000 s.f. footprint? 3. Is there any justification to allow lot coverage by structures to increase from 17.5% pre-existing to 19.8%, when the Code only allows 15%? Does the intent to provide enclosed storage for collector cars, masonary construction equipment, and other items currently stored outside on the property, justify the size garage proposed? Is the single large garage structure more appropriate for the site than a number of smaller buildings, from a visual perspective? Note that the applicants propose to remove the tin shed remaining on the property. 4. Is there any justification for approval of a hardcover increase from 46.5% (including the tin shed, old 20' x 24' garage, and old 10' x 20' barn) up to 50.6% in the 75-250' zone? Is there additional hardcover in the 0-75' or 75-250' zones that can be removed to mitigate the additions? Note that the driveway and parking area is part of a shared loop driveway serving two other residences. Options for Recosmendatlon Planning Commission might wish to consider the followino possible recommendations: 1. Denial . 2. Partial approval, subject to limitations on garage size, location and/or concurrent hardcover removals (specify those conditions). 3. Approval as proposed, with or wxthout additional conditions. 4. Table, giving applicant direction as to what type of plan revisions might result in a positive recooimendation. 5. Other. lav pc r ST- ^ ■ A I t il. * f ■