Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#16-3874 ' <br /> October 13,2016 <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br /> more functional year-round residence. Attaching the garage allows for additional second- <br /> story living space above it. It has been typical of tear-down/rebuilds on the lakeshore to <br /> attach the garage, resulting in a more compact massing of structure on a given site and <br /> resulting in a less-crowded streetscape. An added benefit is the ability to have a backup <br /> apron in the street yard to allow forward vehicle movement entering the road — especially <br /> important on Shadywood Road. <br /> The proposed house, covered front stoop and attached garage comprise 1,951 s.f. or 18.2% <br /> structural coverage of the property. <br /> Analysis—Hardcover Variance <br /> Because of the attachment, the garage becomes part of the house and as required by code is <br /> proposed to meet the 30' street setback. This results in additional length of driveway as <br /> compared to a side-load detached garage, while allowing for a 10'x10' backup apron and <br /> room for off-street guest parking. The proposed driveway is not much wider than the garage <br /> doors. The proposed grade-level patio extends approximately 6 feet past the average <br /> lakeshore setback line but at the low level is not considered as a view encroachment. The <br /> patio does constitute approximately 110 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone where hardcover <br /> is not normally allowed. Total hardcover proposed on the site is 3,179 s.f. (29.6%) where <br /> 2,685 s.f. (25%) would normally be allowed. Potential reductions appear to be limited — <br /> slight reductions in the driveway or patio may be possible but a reduction to reach the 25% <br /> limit would likely require a home re-design. <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Statement attached as Exhibit E,and should <br /> be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Neighbor Comments <br /> Staff has not received any comments from the neighbors as of this writing. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use <br /> the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official <br /> control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the lot area and width variances, as <br /> well as the structural lot coverage and hardcover variances, if granted will not <br /> alter the essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does Planning Commission find justification for granting structural lot coverage <br /> and hardcover variances for this new construction? <br /> 4. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested or in some <br /> other manner or configuration are justified, does the Commission find it <br /> necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the <br /> granting of the variances? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />