Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#05-3133 5 <br /> 30 June 2005 <br /> Page 1 of 5 <br /> � Date Application Received: 06-22-OS <br /> Date Application Considered as Complete: OG-29-05 <br /> 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08-29-OS <br /> To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members <br /> Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br /> From: Melanie Curtis, City Planner n n,� <br /> �� � <br /> Date: June 30, 2005 <br /> Subject: OS-3133, Bruce &Elizabeth Nusbaum, 3480 North Shore Drive, <br /> • Variances: Side Setback, Hardcover, Structural Coverage <br /> � Conditional Use Permit: Accessory Building on a Through Lot <br /> • Ptiblic Hearing <br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acre/100' <br /> Lot Area: 0.22 acre (9,568 s.£) <br /> Lot Width: 50' <br /> Applictction Sa�mmary: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for an <br /> accessory structure on a tl�rough-lot, and the following variances in order to construct a <br /> detached garage: <br /> 1. A side setback variance for a 3.7' side setback where 10' is required, and <br /> 2. A rear yard setback variance for a 15' rear yard setback where 30' is normally <br /> reqtiired, and <br /> 3, A 75' — 250' zone hardcover variance for 30.8% hardcover where 25% is normally <br /> allowed and 30.2% was previously approved, and <br /> 4. A 250' — 500' zone hardcover variance for 41.8% hardcover where 30% is normally <br /> allowed and 46.3% was previously approved and 47.9% currently exists (due to 12 <br /> s.f. of hardcover added by the City when the Birch Lane was iinproved), and <br /> 5. A structural coverage variance to allow 1,750 s.£ or 18.2% where 1,500 s.f. or 15.6% <br /> is normally allowed and 1,721 s.f. or 18%was reviously a proved. <br /> Stccff Reconzmentlatio�a: Planning Staff reconunends approval of the hardcover v�riance <br /> for 30.8% hardcover where 30,2% was previously approved, approval of the rear yard <br /> and side yard setback variances as proposed and should the Planning Coirunission find <br /> that a hardslup exists with respect to the size of garage allowed a structural coverage <br /> variance to allow 18.2% where 18% was reviously a roved should be considered. <br /> 1 <br />