01-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

//02-2860 January 13,2003 Page 3 be reconfigured to provide for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, while meeting the 30' setback requirement. Based on the 1973 building plans, the slab has a perimeter footing; this would have to be modified to support the west garage wall if the variance is denied, although it might be feasible to save the remainder of the slab as an outdoor grade-level non-covered parking area if the applicant so chooses. Applicant has provided a second survey which indicates a proposed house/garage location meeting the 30' setback should tlic side setback variance be denied. Status of Cul-De-Sac; Front Setback Variance Required For zoning purposes the publicly used and maintained cul-de-sac existing upon the S\V comer of the property has been deleted from the lot area calculation. The City is unaware of any dedication or existing casement for this cul-de-sac. Per Municipal Code Section 6.01, Subd. I(L) the definition of public road, “Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface.” Also, per the Municipal Code definition of "property line" (11.03 Subd. 2.43), “Regradless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with the Zoning Chapter., .shall be...thc edge of the right-of-way...”. Therefore, a line 1 O' from the edge of the pavement of this portion of the ‘public road’ must be used as the front property line for front setback dctemiination. The proposed attached garage will be approximately 28' from the defined “front lot line” related to the cul-de-sac, where a 50' setback is required. Under the ‘Alternative Plan', where the garage meets the 30' side setback, the front setback relative to the cul-de-sac is 35' where 50' is required. There is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of this cul-de-sac; however, the City Kngineer in his 1999 County Road 15 Trafllc Study suggested that a future method to make 15 safer would be to eliminate the 1 Icritagc/1 5 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brow n Road South across the rail corridor...such a rerouting could eliminate the cul-de-sac and hence the setback issue. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. 26* Wetland Setback for Proposed Deck The existing and proposed house appears to be setback appro.ximately 39' from the w etlaiid, more than the 26' w etland setback required by City code. However, the wetland has not been fonnally delineated, and staff is rel>ing on the provideii topography to estimate the wetland boundaiy'. A second-story deck of unknown dimensions is proposed to extend from the northeast side of the house. It would be appropriate to have the applicant get the wetland boundary' delineated prior to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the required setback.