09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r file •C4-J052 Sest*"'B«M3 2004 p»5«4c'5 Side Street Setback Variance Bordering the applicani's property to the nonh 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 buildable area. A reasonable home can be constructed within this width. The City Engineer ’s comments address the issue of house size relating to drainage. It is the Engineer's thought that the size of the home as proposed vmII need to be scaled back to allow for appropriate grading between the lots in order to avoid directing drainage onto neighboring propenies. 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?i. 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 15% structural coverage amount based on the iotal dr>' land area. The total property area is 20.561 sf.; however this includes an appro.ximate 4.000 s.f. portion separated from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The conngvous land area is approxim.atcly 16.400 s f. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total non contiguous parcel 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 loi area. The property to the south (2648 Casco Point Road) is similar in that it al.so contains a noncontiguous “island" of land In 1985. an approximately 3000 s f. home was constructed at 2648 Casco Point Road which, based on the contiguoia area of this lot. is 10^0 lot coverage and 21*-* hardcover. Tnis lot is considerably larger tlian the applicant’s property. However, the applicant’s property is only slightly substandard m area and width. The 15% lot coverage amount is a limit, not an allowance. On lakeshore propenies the limiting factor very often is the hardcover percentage, not the structural coverage amount A similar sized lot, Loffler, 1690 Shadyavood Road. Application <*04-3009. v as 80’-83’ in width and 0.39 acre and was limited to 33“b 75’ - 250’ hardcover (the hard.ships 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 wxs reduced to 14.7% lot coverage in order to make the hard:cvcr vvork at 33* b. 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 11 ’ deck on the lakeside of the home. The driveway and sidewalks as proposed seem excessive at 31’ and 8’ widths respectively. The curb cut of the driveway is not permitted at greater than 20’ at the ^ueet. The driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb, and would need to be subslaaiially reduced overall to bring the L