Laserfiche WebLink
To: Planning Commission <br />From: Michael P. Gaff.ron, Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />Date: April, 16, 1986 <br />Subject: #1022, Charles A. Schall, 605 Park Lane <br />- Variance - Public Hearing <br />ZONING DISTRICT- LR-lB <br />APPLICATION Hai- ,over and setback variances to construct a new attached <br />garage, 2nd story 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 '-ditions (Survey) <br />r- Existing Hardcover (Survey) <br />G- Hardcover Proposed Additions and Potent4,.l Removals <br />H- Hardcover Calculations <br />Existing Hardcover 0-75'=4% (No ci.anges proposed) <br />Existing Hardcover 75-250'=48.8% <br />Proposed Additional 75-250' Hardcover = 8.6% <br />Potential 75-250' Hardcover Removals =9.0% <br />(Potential Slight Net Decrease in overall Hardcover) <br />This is a 0.19 acre 1 akesh re property with a sma 1 1 existing house and <br />attached 1-car garage exiting directly to the street. Th ?xisting garage <br />is 1.7 feet from the right-of-way of Park Lane. There ais an adjacent <br />parking apron on the south side of the garage. Because of the small lot <br />area and Che existing sidewalks, Jeck, paved areas, rock beds with plastic, <br />etc., the hardcover on this property is quite extensive. The existing <br />house is 3.6' from the north lot line, and about 10-12' from the <br />neighboring house. <br />Applicant is requesting to add a 22.'x22' attached garage on the s et <br />side of the house, loading from the outh side, plus a 5'xl6' entryw►, n <br />the south si'e of the house. The new g- --age is proposed tc include a :.nd <br />story room, and will _)e 7.7' from the north lot 1.,ne, and about 3.5' from <br />the street, both technically requiring setback variances. <br />Applicant has not specified which (if any) items o` existing hardcover <br />will be removed; howevt•r, I have reviewed the existin(j hardcover and find <br />that there are substantial areas that can potentially ')e removed in order <br />to offset the increases. This is, of course, n item for Planning <br />Commission to discuss with the applicant. <br />FURTHER . Pt.MS FOR DISCUSSION: <br />1 ) Is the property large enough to jus, ify variances fora major new <br />