01-27-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' � PC Exhibit E Date Appiication Received: 09/18/13 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/04/13 120-Day Review Period Extension Expires; O1/O1/14 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 3 December 2013 Item No. �f Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis � Title: Planning &Zoning Coordinator Item Description: 13-3636, Lixiao Wang, 3059 Farview Ln,Variances: Hardcover and Side Yard, Lake, &Average Setback Zoning District: LR-1A, One Family Lakeshore Residential,2-acres/200' Lot Area: 118,852 square feet (2.7 acres) Lot Width: 232 feet at OHWL& approximately 280 feet at the 75'setback list of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Revised Survey Exhibit B. Revised Hardcover Calculations Exhibit C. Revised Garage Plan Exhibit D. Applicant's Variance Justification—Revised 12/02/13 Exhibit E. Neighbor Comments—Received 11/18/13 Exhibit F. Planning Commission Staff Report& Exhibits-11/15/13 Exhibit G. PC Action & Extension Notice—11/19/13 Exhibit H. Draft PC Minutes-11/18/13 Application Summary: The applicant recently purchased the subject property and would like to construct a 6' x 34' one story garage addition to the home in order to better accommodate vehicle parking. There is a small portion of the lake side of the home which currently encroaches into the 75-foot setback but for the most part the home is situated right at the 75-foot lakeshore setback. The entry retaining walls and the northeast corner of the home currently encroach into the required 30-foot side setback. The applicant's home is situated entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The garage addition is proposed to be constructed over a portion of the existing driveway resulting in only 36 square feet of additional total hardcover or 11.8%total for the site where 25%is allowed. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 18th the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to recommend denial of the applicant's variance request. At their first meeting, in October, the applicant initially proposed a 12' addition, to which the Planning Commission responded by recommending the addition be reduced by half the depth and tabled the application. At their follow up meeting with the Planning Commission the applicant opted to propose a 9' addition citing the need to accommodate each of his vehicles. As is detailed in the attached draft Planning Commission minutes the Commission questioned the applicant as to why the 9' addition was proposed when