08-08-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ul ■U Staff Recommendation Staff finds that if the Council agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the renovation/addition proposal, a resolution could be drafted for approval at the next City Council meeting. However, with regard to a rebuild application, staff is unsure of whether the same variances would be appropriate. The applicant is proposing the lot line rearrangement to incorporate usable additions into the existing shape, layout and location of the house, to accomplish a “remodel with additions ”. But, as a “total rebuild ” that would be absent the constraints and limitations imposed by the existing house, a functional house could surely be designed to fit within the pre-existing lot lines. A total rebuild would not seem to require making the neiglibor ’s lot smaller in area while giving it more width at the lakeshore, nor making applicant’s lot larger in area while giving up lakeshore. The 400 s.f. trade-off in area associated with the lot line rearrangement gains the applicant an additional 60 s.f. of lot coverage \^le leaving the neighbor right at 15.0%. Applicant is proposing additions that result in a house (without decks) that is also at exactly 15.0% (2,233 s.f.) of the post- lot-line-rearrangement lot area. The 2,233 s.f. footprint requires conforming setbacks of 10 ’ from the new lot line, but places it only 8’ from the street where 30 ’ is required. No other home in the neighborhood is this near the street (see Exhibit G), and the additions result in an even greater area and bulk of building encroaching within the required 30 ’ street yard. The house location is predicated on the existing sewer line angling across the lot at its midpoint, and the lot’s hourglass shape. The City typically requires a 10 ’ easement either side of a sewer line, but no such easement was apparently granted in the 1970 ’s when the sewer was installed. The City is requiring such an easement as a condition of the lot line rearrangement. The constrictions at the midpoint of the lot impose a hardship that limits the location of the house, and support some degree of street setback variance. Recognizing the inherent constraints of the lot due to the hourglass shape and the location of the City sewer line, staff feels that under the “remodel and additions ” scenario, the proposed variances are reasonable, because the existing house itself poses an added hardship. However, under a “total rebuild ” scenario, the limitations imposed by the existing house go away, and the City would be best served by requiring a greater street setback, reducing the size of the house to less than 15% (which is a limit, not an allowance) and gaining back some open green space along the roadway. The potential for this application to become a rebuild again illustrates the difficulty in treating rebuilds and remodels differently in variance reviews. Applicants are seemingly rewarded for doing remodels rather than rebuilds, and they strive to retain bits and pieces of the existing house to justify the retention of setback and hardcover nonconformities or encro " chments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution approving the renovation/addition proposal in accordance with the Planning Conunission recommendation, and/or Discuss the rebuild scenario and determine if a lot line re-arrangement would be appropriate and what level of rear/street yard setback, 250 ’ - 500 ’ hardcover variance, and footprint square footage would be reasonable. 4 11