Laserfiche WebLink
, . , � <br /> • Iten:#11-CC Agenda-I2/11/06 <br /> • File#06-3234/35[Total Pages 94J <br /> 06-3234&06-3235 <br /> November 13,2006 <br /> ' Page 2 of 3 <br /> Planning Commission Comments & ApPlicant Response � <br /> • Kempf conzm.ented he is in favor of th.e shared dri>>e���ay, noti�g that. it ia�oulc��•edzrce . <br /> . tlze an7oz��zt of Iza��dco>>er on Clze lots. Kenzpf ��.oted tlze Ci.ry Engineer� has <br /> �•econzmend.ed[hat the steel�ness of the c��•i>>e��ay be re-evalz�atec�and�•evised to alloi�� <br /> fo�° a 20 foot a�•ea direct.ly off the �•oadma�> >vitl�. a slope ��o greate�� 11�an 2 pe��cent. r.f <br /> possable. <br /> ' The applicant's engineer has attempted to re-evaluate the driveway and the result remains <br /> to be considerably steeper than the City Engiileer is comfortable with; at approximately <br /> 15%. While staff and tlle City's Engineer feel that the steepness of ihe driveway and <br /> access on to North Shore Drive is a concern the Planning Cominission 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 sha�•ed driveway accessing attached garages at the proposed <br /> residences. The applicant has evaluated tlus situation and feels that it is the appropriate <br /> option for the site. Staff would recoriunend that the applicant heat the driveway and <br /> possibly offer some sort of wall-like struct�ire at the bottom of the driveway to prevent <br /> driving off and into the lake. <br /> • It was the consensus of the Plcrnning Commission that they��ould��ot be r'n fcn�ot•,'of ct � <br /> r•esidence in excess of two and a half sCories. <br /> The applicant has proposed homes which meet the City's height ordinance. <br /> • Brenaer inqar.ired��het.her the house should be o��ie��ted fic��ther to the ivest. Jur•gens <br /> stated either tlae h.ouse should be movec���est or the p��operty line should be �noved <br /> easte��ly. Rahn stated on.e issue with the cli�i>>eway is t.he inability for a la�•ge car 1�0 <br /> park in the drive���ay N�ithout. enc��oaching ont.o the neighboring��•ope��ty... <br /> ' The applicant l�as redesigned the home on the western lot to allow for a greater parking <br /> pad outside the garage in response to tlle Plaruling Commission's concerns. <br /> � • B��eme��stated allo�vir�g sor��e va�•ia��ces on tlze N�esterly lot is ��easonc�ble but tlzat the <br /> footpr•z�at for the I�.ozese on t17e ecaste��ly lot shoztic�be�°educec� <br /> The applicant has reduced tlie hardcover on the easterly lot from 41% proposed to 34.5% <br /> by changing the footprint orientation of ihe hoine and reducing the driveway hardcover. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does t11e Commission feel ihat fihere are allowances or hardships with respect to the <br /> access, site topography and bluff to allow the variances to the bluff sel:back & side . <br /> street setback (western lot), rear yard setback (eastenz lot), and hardcover as <br /> � requested? <br /> 2. Does the Plaruling Comnzission feel tliat the variances as reqttested are reasonable? <br /> 3. Are there any issttes or concerns wiih this application? <br />