pf_03305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I forth as a PUD? (no redevelopment is occurring). The building looks like a large 2 house, the large garage may be out of scale. (Lot coverage and garage size do not 3 apply to R-3A sites.) 4 5 Member Olson asked for details of the garage access from Haddington. How big a 6 garage is allowed in an R-3A? Would the future garage provide a covered stall 7 for each unit? 8 9 Dennis Prokop, 2180 Haddington, explained his plans to improve the building. 10 He will live in one unit. The garage in back would add privacy and separation II from the adjoining Goodwill drop off site. He was concerned about the exact 12 dimension of the setback. It is approximately 9'-0" setback, but details will not 13 be known before a lot survey is complete. The four-car garage would allow one 14 car garage per unit (when added to the existing garage stall). 15 16 Thomas Paschke suggested language such as "a 9' variance or as determined by a 17 survey prior to Council action". 18 19 Member Cunningham asked if the two existing garage stalls would remain as car 20 parking or living space. Prokop said he would use it for parking or storage. 21 22 Linda Prokop, 2180 Haddington, noted that the objective is to make the house 23 better and live there. 24 25 Lucille Eng, 2213 Midlothian Rd., Haddington at County Road B, has another 26 apartment with garages east-to-west. Could this site be changed to a 25-unit 27 building? (Only through hearings and approvals by City Council). Thomas 28 Paschke explained the requirement of the Code allows for six units. Only the 29 comer (south, adjacent lot) is not single family. Traffic is a concern to the 30 neighbors, particularly if this is a large project.. 31 32 Chair Rhody closed the hearing since there were no further public comments. 33 34 Chair Rhody and Jim Mulder discussed garage size. (The Code allows for two 35 spaces per unit; one must be enclosed.) 36 37 Member Olson expressed concern about the lot coverage (50% of the lot or 38 .5FAR can be covered with structures). 39 40 Member Cunningham asked if the site could be raised; what is the maximum for a 41 new building (6 units). Member Wilke noted that changes would have to come 42 back to the Planning Commission for review. 43 44 A general discussion of lot coverage ensued. There appears to be no other good 45 options to rezoning to R-3A. 46 Page 3 of 11