10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 ricE *04.MM 13 2004 P«9«4olS 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 ft»r a 10* .setback on the south and a 15* side street setback on the north leaves a 55* wide buildable area A reasonable home can be con^uructed within this width. The City rnginecr s comments address the issue of house si/e relating to drainage. It is the Engineer s thought that the si/c of the home as proposed w ill need to be scaled back to allow for appropriate grading between the lots in order to avoid directing drainage onto neighboring properties. 1 he applicant's proposal brings about some challenging drainage issues for this property. Ilardcoscr \'ariaiicc Ihc applicant is proposing 57.0^o hardcover. The existing residence and hardcover are just above the allowed limit for the 75* 250’ setback /one at 26.4 “^ The existing home has an approximate footprint of 1,184 s.f. The applicant is proposing a 3,002 s.f. footprint to essentially “max out ” the l5"'o structural coverage amount based on the total dry land area. The total property area is 20,561 s.f; however this includes an approximate 4,000 s f portion separatt'd from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay The contiguous land area is approximately 16,400 s.f.. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total non-contiguous parcel abo\ e the 029.4’ 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 Casco I'oint Road) is similar in that it al.so contains a noncontiguous “island" of land. In 1985, an approximately 30(K) s f. home wa.s constructed at 2648 Ca.sco Point Road which, based on the contiguous area of this lot, is 10^0 lot coverage and 21*/o 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 IS'J'o lot coverage amount is a limit, not an allowance. On lakcshorc properties the limiting factor very often is the hardcover percentage, not the structural coverage amount. A similar sized lot, LolTler, 1690 Shadywood Road. Application ««)4-3009. was 80’-83' in width and 0.39 acre and was limited to 33f« 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 negative impacts on lake views due to the location of adjacent homes near the shore). That house was reduced to 14.7^'o lot coverage in order to make the hardcover work at 33*o. For the applicant ’s proposal, a 3,002 s.f footprint. 1,225 s.f. of driveway, and 215 s f. of sidewalk make up the 57.9^^o proposed hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18' X ir deck on the lakeside of the home. The driveway and sidewalks as proposed seem c.xccssivc at 31* and 8’ widths respectively. The curb cut of the driveway k not permitted at greater than 20' at the street. The driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb, and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the