11-12-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Soiling rilo «1682 Soptonbor 6* 1991 Pngo 3 of ? iMOon to Conaidor 1. 2. 3. la thore any reasonable justification to allow a garage of any else to be located 2~3* irom the rear and side lot linea? A garage 0-750 s.f. in area would normally require 10* actbacka from the aide and rear lot lines for this lakeahore lot. A garage 751-1000 s.f. would require 15* setbacks. Bocauae 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? 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 1S%? Does the intent to provide enclosed storage for collector cars, masonary construction equlpsMntr 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 nusiber of smaller buildings, from a visual perspective? Vote that the applicants propose to remove the tin shed resMlnlng on the property. Is there any justification for approval of a hardcover Increase from 48.5% (including the tin shed, old 20* x 24* garage, and old 10* s 20* barn) up to 50.6% in the 75-250* some? Is there additional hardcover in the 0-75* or 75-250* tones 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. Optiems for ■soamModetlon Planning Commission wish to consider the following possible recommendations: 1. Denial. 3. Partial approval, subject to limitations on garaoe slse, location and/or concurrent hardcover removals (specify those conditions). 3. Approval as proposed, with or without additional conditions. 4. i;4. 9. lav Table, giving applicant direction as to what typ# of plan revisions might result in a positive Other.Cj./(„-'* I £- ^ A