Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />W05-3II2 <br />May 16,200S <br />Pate 7 of8 <br />Structural Coverage <br />Lastly, the applicant is requesting a structural coverage variance to permit 16.5% when <br />15% is normally allowed. The percentage proposed is based on acceptance of the lot line <br />rearrangement where 17% structural coverage would be proposed with no lot line <br />rearrangement. The footprint proposed is 2,233 s.f which would meet 15%, however <br />with the addition of the 230 s.f. deck, a variance is needed. Staff would recommend <br />denial of this request as the house footprint can be reduced to allow for a deck. The <br />existing structural coverage level is conforming at 13.8%. <br />L ot L ine Re-A rrangement <br />In an effort to construct an attached garage, the applicant has proposed a lot line <br />rearrangement that would result in 393 s.f. of area being added to the applicant's lot and <br />389 s.f. of area is subtracted from 1190 Wildhurst Trail, which is the lot to the direct <br />north. Staff has suggested that equal amounts of area be traded so that neither lot <br />becomes more or less non-conforming in area than the other lot. This remains staffs <br />reconunendation. <br />An additional concern with the proposed lot line rearrangement is that the applicant’s lot <br />will be losing 2 ’ of width at the lake where 140’ is normally required and 56’ would be <br />proposed. The lot to the north will be gaming 2 ’ of lakeshore where a non-conforming <br />width of approximately 57’ currently exists. Staff would recommend that a <br />rearrangement be explor^ whereby no lakeshore is traded, or equal amounts are traded, <br />as both widths are currently non-conforming. <br />The rearrangement as proposed also results in an increase in 1190 Wildhurst Trail’s 75’- <br />250’ hardcover slightly. There are no variance records on file for this lot and .staff would <br />hesitate *o recommend that the City formally grant a variance permitting almost 46% <br />hardcover when 25% is normally allowed. <br />Lastly, because a lot line rearrangement request is considered a subdivision, staff would <br />recommend that a utility easement be obtained over the existing sewer line. A force main <br />and gravity line run parallel to each other and an easement 20 ’ centered over the two lines <br />should be required. This includes both lots involved in the lot line rearrangement. The <br />applicant should be questioned on whether 20 ’ easements can be obtained over both lots. <br />Obtaining a 20 ’ easement centered over the line puts the southeast comer of the proposed <br />lakeward addition within the easement. This should be revised as no new structure <br />should come within 10’ of an existing sewer line. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Should this application be reviewed as a rebuild? <br />2. Can structural and hardcover reductions be attained? <br />3. Should the location of an existing structure that is being remodeled act as a hardship <br />for locating new stracture? Further, could a more unobstructed front yard be attained <br />if the applicant approached the project as a rebuild? <br />4. Should equal amounts of area and width be traded so that no lot becomes more or less