Laserfiche WebLink
Application Date: 1/28/03 ^ ^ <br />60 Day Deadline: 3/29/03 oi i v Uh OHONO <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Department Approval: DATE: <br />Name Wendy Bottenberg ITEM NO.: ^ <br />Title City Planner AgeiidaSection: Zoning <br />Item Description: 802-2871 Dan and Sally Weatherly <br />1214 Wildhurst Trail <br />After-The-Fact Variances <br />Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) <br />Lot Area: 47,327 s.f. (1.086 acre) <br />List of Exhibits: <br />A Resolution <br />B Staff Report and Exhibits of 2/19/2003 <br />Application Summary: The applicants are requesting two alter-the-fact variances for a newly <br />constructed single family residence. The first variance is to allow the foundation of the newly <br />constructed residence to be located 9 ‘/i’ from the side property line where 10’ is required. The <br />second variance is to allow the eaves to encroach into the side yard setback. <br />Pertinent Code Sections: <br />1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15(A): Non-Encroachments: Eaves shall not be considered to be <br />encroachments on yard requirements provided they do not extend more than 1 feet. To <br />permit eaves to encroach more than 1 W into the side yard setback. <br />2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): To permit the foundation to encroach 6" into the side yard <br />setback. The side yard setback will be 9 feet where 10’ is required. <br />Discussion: <br />The subject property was purchased in 2002. The applicant’s initial plan was to remodel the <br />existing residence and add a second story. Shortly after the applicants started the project, it <br />was determined the foundation was not sound enough to handle the additional load of a second <br />story. The structure was demolished and a new foundation was built. <br />While out to the property for an insulation and roof inspection, the building inspector noticed <br />the eaves on the north side of the residence were more than the allowed \ W. The inspector <br />verified this by review ing the submitted plans of which the building permit was issued. The <br />eaves were too big. The City then notified the builder of the problem. Shortly after this, the <br />applicant’s brought on a new architect and builder. <br />City staff and the new architect and builder discussed the problem with the eaves and a <br />proposed attached garage. Another set of plans were submitted for the proposed attached <br />garage. The proposed garage met the required 10’ setback. The garage was designed to follow