Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#06-3172 <br /> � 10 February 2006 " <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> homes. Addition�ll�y, the neighboring liome is located closer to the lake and may not be _ <br /> shadowed by the 2" siory at S.5' on the applicants' 1loine. _ <br /> The applicants �ue proposing to re-grade the street side yard as part of this application. <br /> The re-grading will result in a inore nahiral slope to the right-of-way and also the <br /> reinoval of rock aiid wooden walls which currently encroach on the right-of way. Wi1;h <br /> regarci to the retaining wall within 75' of the lalce, staff feels ihat the wall is unneeessary <br /> and should be removed. <br /> Issues for Consider�►tion <br /> • The Planning Commission should diseuss ihe repercussions, if any, of allowing a <br /> further side setback encroaclunent for the second story. ' <br /> • The plans reflect a structural coverage level of 15.5%. The applicants should revise <br /> to be within the 15% limit. <br /> • Are ihere any ofiher issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommenclation <br /> . Planning Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance in order to relocate the <br /> garage off of Carman on to Frederick in conjunction with the street yard grading and <br /> � removal of encroaclunents into the right-of-way. If the Planning Conzinission feels that <br /> there is hardship with respect to the lot width and filie existing side yard setback staff <br /> would support the 2"d story at a reduced setback. Additionally, staff will �zot support an <br /> increase in structural coverage resulting in more than 15%; staff would recommend the <br /> '" � applicants submit revised plans reflecting 15% as allowed - this would require a <br /> reduction of 62 s.f. in tlie proposed garage. The applicants should be required to address <br /> all of the City's engineering concerns in Tom Kellogg's letter(Exhibit F). <br /> 4 <br />