05-11-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3pg Zoning File #1714 May 5, 1992 if-; Page 3P- iiS 1; U*. i. Vi a ■' I ■j.. -. ■'Vv Vi ■i-i-;vi- kV .: r . . Vv ■. resultiing in approximately 172 s.f. of additional hardcover. Tne ordinance specifically requires when a detached garage is placed 10 from the street lot line, turnaround must be provided on site. Staff has enclosed information on Application #886, the property located at 1925 Concordia. Review Exhibits J 1-2 and K. In that application Council approved a deck within 60' of the shoreline with a net increase of 404 s.f. of deck area within the lakeshore protected 2^0^, Because of the unique construction and the fact that the deck was a grade level deck requiring no railing, the application was approved with the deck area not being considered hardcover. Many of the findings set forth in Resolution #1730 can also be made for the applicant as the same 15* high lakeshore banks runs along applicant's shoreline and the majority of drainage from the lakeshore yard flows away from lake. The lakeside deck will have a negligible impact on the house to the immediate north and most certainly the applicant's deck will have less of an Impact on the neighbor to the south than the southern neighbor s deck installed in 1985 has on applicant's property. Review of the Hardships and Findings The severely steeoed lakeside banks shield proposed deck expansion from the views' at lakeshore. The lakeside deck will not encroach the average lakeshore setback determined by the closest projection of the decks on the adjacent properties. The location of mature trees within the southwest side yard prevent the deck from being located cl ser to the side lot line. The proposed detached shall encroach no closer within the substandard street or side setbacks of current garage. Planning CoBvission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous^ approval finding that the applicant had demonstrated good faith in his attempt to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Members reviewed the site plan to determine if existing hardcover could be reduced and found that all existing accessory improvements were essential to tne single family property. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Flaniilng Commission’s recommendations and bas^d^ on tne^ n^^^ni^s set forth in the staff memo and many of the findings set forth resolution for Application #886 that granted approval of variances for 1925 Concordia* III'-: . A i ; '> '{ I S