Laserfiche WebLink
To: Planning Commission <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />Date: April, 16, 1_,'6 <br />Subject: #1022, Charles A. Schall, 605 Park Lane <br />- Variance - Public Hearing <br />ZONING DISTRICT- LR-1B <br />APPLICATION- Hardcover and setback variances to construct a :.2%.., attached <br />garage, 2nd s�_ory room and entryway. <br />LIST OF EXHIBITS <br />A- Application <br />B- Plat Map <br />C- Property Owners List <br />D- Elevations, Layout of Building <br />E- Proposed Additions (Survey) <br />F- Existinq Hardcover (Surrey) <br />G- Hardcover Proposed Additions and Potential Removals <br />H- Hardcover Calculations <br />Existing Hardcover 0-75'=4% (No changes proposed) <br />Existing Hardcover 75-250'=48.8% <br />Proposed Additional -250' Hardcover = 8.6% <br />Potential 75-250' HarGt.;OVer Removals =..).02 <br />(Potential Slight Net Decrease in overall Hardcover) <br />This is a 0.19 acre lakeshore property with a small existing house and <br />attached 1-car garage exiting directly to the street. The existing garage <br />is 1.7 feet from the right-of-way of Park Lane. There also is an adjacent <br />parking apron on the south side of the garage. Because f the small lot <br />area and the existing sidewalks, deck, paved areas, rock beds with plastic, <br />e'._., the hardcover on this property is quite extensive. T. existing <br />house is 3.6' from the north 1ot line, and about 10-12 from the <br />neighboring house. <br />Applicant is requesting to add a 22'x22' attacned c arage on +-tie street <br />side of the house, loading from the south side, plus a 5'xl.6' entryway on <br />the south side of the house. The new garage is proposed to include a 2nd <br />story room, and wi 11 be 7.7' from the north lot line, and about 3.5' from <br />'the street, both technically requiring setback variances. <br />Applicant has not specified which (if any) items of existing hardcover <br />will be removed; however, I have reviewed the existing hardcover and find <br />that there are substantial areas that can potentially be removed in order <br />to offset the increases. This 's, of course, an item for Planning <br />Commission to discuss with the applicant. <br />FURTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: <br />1 ;) Is the property 1-irge enough to -i' stifv vai iances for a major new <br />