03-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Resolution U3231 (Zoning File //1791), recorded in 1993, permitted the applicants to construct additions to the existing home on this property with the following variance: side yard setbacks of 19.3 feet to the north and 12.7 ’ to the south where 30’ is required. Two parcels were also combined at that time to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Discussion: By the current Zoning Ordinance, the existing house is non-conforming. Since the applicants arc proposing to move the existing house off of the property and build a new house, the new structure should be constructed as close to conformity as possible. The propo.sed plan eliminates a detached garage which is currently situated over the lot line and onto the neighboring property and proposes an attached garage 10' from the lot line. Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be part of the principal structure, requiring a 30' setback instead of 11 ’ for a detached garage. An accessory structure exists within the 0-75' hardcover zone. This structure was also identified in the 1993 application, referenced above. Tlie resolution stated that this structure was non- conforming and any structural repairs would require City approval. I he applicant is not proposing to change the structure from how it currentiv exists. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. 'I he applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . Variances granted on a property for past construction are not applicable to new construction on the same property; 2. Granting the requested variances for new construction on this property will set a precedent for redevelopment of the modest-sized properties to the immediate south (pictured in Exhibit M); 3. The hardcover requirements in each zone are met with the exception of the existing accessor>' structure in the 0-75' zone; 4. The non-conforming detached garage, currently located over the property line, is removed with the proposed plan; 5. The attached garage is considered part of the principal structure and should be evaluated according to the setback requirements for a principal structure; 6. 1 he applicant combined the adjoining lot in order to increase the lot width and lot area to be closer to conformity as required with their previous application; 7. Most other lakeshorc lots in this slowly redeveloping neighborhood are less than 1 acre in area and less than 200 ’ in width; therefore, requiring the full 2 acre side setback standards i^02-2859 Blake and Mary Bichanich 332 Westlake Street 1/23/2003 Page 2 of 4 i