Laserfiche WebLink
M)S-3I40 <br />August IS, 200S <br />Page I ofS <br />Date ApplfcatioH Received: 7-18-OS <br />Dale ApplicatioB Coniidered as Complete: 7-18-OS <br />60-Day Review Period Eiplret: 9-16-OS <br />To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Janice Gundlach, City Planne^^ <br />August 9,2005 <br />Subject:OS-3140, Andrew & Kristen Ronningen, 3030 Casco Point Road, Side <br />Street Setback & Average Lakeshore Setback Variances, Public Hearing <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />Lot Width: <br />LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('A acre min.) <br />0.71 acres (30,927 s.f.) <br />97’ @ shoreline; 153’ @ 75 ’ setback <br />A/^katioM Summaty: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a <br />12/12 pitch roof where a 4/10 pitch roof currently exists, which will increase the ceiling <br />height in the main level kitchen/living area and add a 1/2 story over the existing main <br />level bedrooms: <br />1. Rear yard setback variance to permit rear yard setback of 20 ’ when 30 ’ is <br />normally required, 20 ’ currently exists, and 20 ’ was permitted by variance in <br />1968. <br />2. Average lakeshore setback variance to permit the new roof structure to encroach <br />into the required setback (no further lake encroachment is proposed however the <br />increased height proposed requires approval of this variance). <br />And, also the following variance to allow a covered entry over the existing stoop: <br />1. Rear yard setback variance to permit a rear yard setback of 15’ where 30 ’ is <br />normally required and 20 ’ currently exists, and 20 ’ was permitted by variance in <br />1968. <br />Stiiff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the <br />increased pitch roof as no additional encroachment to the required rear yard is proposed <br />and the additional height will not impact adjacent properties views to the lake due to the <br />curvature of the shoreline in the cove. <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss whether variances should be <br />granted to permit covered entries, when the hardship almost always is the location of the <br />existing home on the lot. If so, the Planning Commission may want to determine under <br />what set of standards covered entries, requiring variances, should meet (for example, <br />fully enclosed, unenclosed, size maximums). <br />Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections <br />Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. <br />(b) lote. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: