Laserfiche WebLink
06-3234&06-3235 <br /> November 13,2006 <br /> � Page 2 of 3 � <br /> Pl�nning Commission Comments & Applicant Response ; � <br /> ,: <br /> .� <br /> • Kenzpf commentecl he is in favo�• of the sha�•ed c�i�ive�a�ay, ��oting that it ��oaeld i°ec�uee . <br /> the �rmotcnt of ha�•dcover on the lots. Kempf noted the Ciry E�zginee�� has <br /> �•ecommendecl that the steepness of the c�ri>>eway be r�e-evalacated and�•evised to allo�� <br /> for a 20 foot cr��ea �li�°eet.ly off the �•oac�way with �t slope no gr•eate�° thczn 2 percent if <br /> posszble. . <br /> ' The applicant's engineer has attempted to re-evaluate the driveway and the result remaius <br /> to be considerably steeper than ihe City Engiiieer is comfortable with; at approximately <br /> 15%. While staff and the City's Engineer feel that the steepness of the driveway and <br /> access on to North Sliore Drive is a concern the Planning Commission should discuss <br /> whether or not it is within the scope of this application. The properties currently have a <br /> large, flat shared "parking lot" on the edge of North Shore Drive the applicant is <br /> proposing to construct a shared driveway accessing attached garages at the proposed <br /> residences. The applicant has evaluafied this situation and feels that it is the appropriate <br /> option for the site. Staff would recommend that the applicant heat the driveway and <br /> possibly offer some sort of wall-like strucfi.ire at the bottom of the driveway to prevent <br /> driving off and into the lake. <br /> • It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would�zot be in favo�•bf a • <br /> r•esidence in excess of tw�o and a half stories. , <br /> The applicant has proposed homes which meet the City's height ordinance. <br /> • Bremer inquired�t�hether the house shoztld be oriented fit��ther to the ��est. 1zr�gens <br /> stated eitlzef• tlae house should be moved west oi• the property line should be movec� <br /> easterly. Rahn stated one issate ��ith t�he di•il�e��ay is t.he inability fof• a large car to <br /> park in the drive��ay��ithozct encr•oc�ching onto the neighbo�•ingp�•ope�•ty... <br /> ' The applicant lias redesigned the home on the western lot to allow for a greater parking <br /> pad outside the garage in response to the Planning Commission's concerns. <br /> � • Bt•emer stated crllo�t�z�zg sonze va��icazces on the N�este�•ly lot is i•easonc�ble but thczt the <br /> footp�°ir�t fo�•the house on the easte�•ly lot should be�•editce�l _ <br /> The applicant has reduced the hardcover on the easterly lot from 41%proposed to 34.5% <br /> by changing the footprint orientation of the home and reducing fihe driveway hardcover. ` <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does t11e Commission feel that there are allowances or hardships with respect to the <br /> access, site topography and bluff to allow the variances to the bluff setback & side <br /> street setback (western lot), rear yard setback (eastern lot), and hardcover as <br /> requested? � <br /> 2. Does fihe Planning Commission feel that the variances as requested are reasonable? <br /> 3. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? � <br /> , <br />