07-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^05-3112 May 16,2005 Page 6 of8 sewer line, which runs diagonally through the center of the lot, and also the location where the side lot lines pinch together at a width of 33 feet. These two factors alone push any structure to the back third of the lot. This is because nothing can be constructed on the lake side of the sewer line due to the 75’ required setback, and more rcstrictively, the average lakeshore setback. Beyond establishing that a hardship exists inherent to the land, the next step is determining what variances and what level of variances should be granted in order to alleviate the hardship. Setbacks Staff would determine that there is ample width on the back third of the lot and therefore no side setbacks should be granted, nor is the applicant requesting any. Secondly, the existing setback to the rear/street yard is 7.8 feet when 30 ’ is normally required. It would be standard practice for the Planning Commission and City Council to not allow any further encroachment than existing. The applicant is doing this by proposing a setback of approximately 10 ’. The proposed attached garage is 24’ x 25’. Based on that size garage, tl^ 10 ’ rear/street yard setback is the greatest that can be obtained without encroaching on the 10 ’ requir^ side yard. The limited factor of the substandard rear/street yard setback is the location of the existing house. Staff would suggest that due to the level of work proposed, the City may be better served if the applicant were to propose an entire rebuild udiereby a narrower home with more depth could achieve a setback greater than existing, rather than granting a front yard setback variance for an addition. This is not to say that some level of rear/street yard setback variance would not be supported, but 10 ’ probably isn’t the correct number. It should also be noted, with respect to the requested street/rear yard setback variance, that an extra*ordinary amount of boulevard exists on the applicant’s side of Forest Lake Landing. The road is platted at a width of 60 ’ and only 20 ’ is paved. The road is also not centered within the 60 ’ platted area, resulting in an undevelopeu right-of-way in the front of the applicant’s lot of 18’ to 20 ’ when 10 ’ normally exists. This is acting as a front yard for the applicant and lessening any negative impacts of a reduced, unobstructed front yard. The Planning Commission may or may not take this into account in determining wlwther to grant the requested rear/street yard setback variance. Hardcover The applicant is also requesting hardcover variances for the 75’-250 ’ and 250 ’-500 ’ zones. Based on the proposed calculations and footprint, staff would recommend no variance be granted for hardcover above 25% in the 75’-250 ’ zone. I'his is because the current proposal requests 26.7% including a 475 s.f. patio and 230 s.f. of deck. To get to 25% would mean a reduction of 137 s.f, which is minimal. It is more likely that a hardcover variance for the 250 ’-500 ’ zone is more reasonable. If the Planning Commission determined that the proposed addition/remodel project is acceptable, staff doesn’t see any potential reductions in unnecessary hanJeover making up the 60% proposed in this zone, although reasonable reductions even below 25% for the 75’-250 ’ zone could make up for some of the overage hardcover in die 250 ’-500 ’ zone. 1