10-25-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #04-3052 September 13,2004 Page 4 of 5 Side Street Setback Variance Bordering the applicant’s property to the north is an undeveloped public right-of-way. The applicant’s property is approximately 80' in width. Allowing for a 10* setback on the south and a 15’ side street setback on the north leaves a 55’ wide buildablc area. A reasonable home can be constructed within this width. The City Engineer ’s comments add ess the issue of house size relating to drainage. It is the Engineer's thought that the size of the home as proposed will need to be scaled back to allow for appropriate grading between the lots in order to avoid directing drainage onto neighboring properties. The applicant’s proposal brings about some challenging drainage issues for this property. Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing 57.9% hardcover. The existing residence and hardcover arc just above the allowed limit for the 75’ - 250’ setback zone at 26.4%. The existing home has an approximate footprint of 1.184 s.f.. ’he applicant is proposing a 3,002 s.f. footprint to essentially “max out’’ the 15% structuial coverage amount based on the total dry land area. The total properly area is 20,561 s.f.; however this includes an approximate 4,000 s.f. portion separated from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The contiguous land area is appro.ximately 16,400 s.f.. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total non-contiguous narcel above the 929.4 ’ elevation. Neither the lot coverage ordinance nor the Zoning Code definition of “lot area'* clarify whether the lot coverage percentage should be based on contiguous area. The Subdivision Code definition of “minimum lot area’’ (Cite 82-2) would disallow non contiguous land as creditable toward lot area. The property to the south (2648 Cfsco Point Road) is similar in that it also contains a noncomiguous “island" of land. In 1985, an approximately 3000 s.f. home was constructed at 2648 Casco Point Road which, based on the contiguous area of this lot. is 1< % lot coverage and 21% hardcover. This lot is considerably larger than the applicant's property. However, the applicant's property is only slightly substandard in area and width. The 15% lot coverage amount is a limit, not an allowance. On lakeshore properties the limiting factor very often is the hardcover percentage, not the structural coverage amount. A similar sized lot, I.offler, 1690 Shadywood Road. Application #04-3009, was 80'-83’ in width and 0.39 acre and was limited to 33% 75' - 250' hardcover (the hardships included being on a busy County Road and needing a backup apron; the non-optimal lot shape; and the inability to move the house nearer the road due to negati * e impacts on lake views due to the location of adj^'cent homes near the shore). That house was reduced to 14.7% lot coverage in order to make the hardcover work at 33%. For the applicant's proposal, a 3,002 s.f footprint, 1.225 s.f of driveway, and 2i5 s.f of sidewalk make up the 57.9% proposed hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18' X 11' deck on the lakeside of the home. The driveway and sidewalks as proposed seem excessive at 31’ and 8' widths re.spectively. The curb cut of the driveway is not permitted at greater than 20* at the street. I he driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb, and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the