Laserfiche WebLink
06-3234&06-3235 <br /> October 12,2006 <br /> _ � Page 3 of 3 <br /> , Application 06-3234—4725 North Shore Drive <br /> This lot does noi: have quite fihe same limited builclable are� as the western lot aiid the <br /> applicant has proposed a 1,860 s.f. hoiiie (13% st�'LiC�:LlTal coverage) aiid 41% hardcover <br /> within the 75'-250' zone. Wlule niore of the sharecl driveway is proposed to be on tl�is <br /> lot,tliis Iot has a larger p�rking area iii fi•oiit of tlie g�rage. <br /> Ap�lication 06-3235—4731 North Shore Drive <br /> There is a bhiff oii the western lot's lakeshore which imp�cts the building footprint area. - <br /> The applicaut is requesting approxiinately 5' of variance from the 30' bluff setback <br /> requirement, which tecluiically is out of the bhiff impact zone,but encro�ches the bhiff <br /> setback. In addition to the bluff setback, lot area �ld lot width variances, a side street <br /> setbacic varia.nce to allow a 20' setback froin the unimproved sic�e street right-of.-way <br /> where a 35' setback is norinally required as well as 1liardcover variaiice to allow 2,087 <br /> s.f. or 29.4% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed on this lot. The proposed home <br /> has a footprint of 1,487 s.f Ol' 13% StTL1C�LlTc11 COVBTage which is below the 15% limit by <br /> 245 s.f.. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does ihe Plaiming Conuliission find that the proposed lot layout is niore beneficial to <br /> the City in the long run than redeveloping the tluee lots as they are currently <br /> . configured? Is the lot line rearrangei7ient appropriate or should the applicaiit be <br /> required to replat? <br /> 2. Does the Conunission feel that there are allowances or haxdships with respect to the <br /> access, site topography aiid bluff to allow a honze on the westeriunost lot (4731) <br /> which functionally will be a walk-out home with 2levels above but would achially be <br /> defuled as a 3 story house by our current methods? <br /> 3. Should the home on the western lot (4731) be moved closer to the County road to , <br /> allow for a reorientation of the driveway? <br /> 4. Would the Plaiuling Comniission consider allowing a decreased setback to the <br /> County road for the westerii home in order to eliniiilate the bluff setback <br /> � encroacluneiits? <br /> S. Is there sufficient justificatioil for the requested hardcover and setbacic variances? <br /> 6. Are there aiiy issues or conceins with tliis application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> If the Platuiing Conunissioii coiicludes th�.t approval of the applicatioii is appropriate, it <br /> shoulcl be condil:ioned oii at leasi ihe following: <br /> 1. The City Eiigineer's requirements nnist be satisfied prior to the application Ueing <br /> placed oii the City Couiicil agenda, and the driveway nnisfi Ue revised to meei City <br /> engiiieer approval. . <br /> 2. The homes niust ineet the City's heiglit requireiiient of 30' aiid 2.5 sfiories. <br /> 3. SuUjeet to easemeirts for the shareci driveway and sharecl tramway. <br /> � Beeause this is a lot line re�rraiigemeizi wluch results in a iio aclditioiial lots,no parlc fee <br /> - or storiiiwater irtu�lc fee will be required. <br />