Laserfiche WebLink
Pertinent Code Sections: <br />1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section I0.S6, Subd 2 16 (L): Additional hardcover on the <br />property in excess of 25% of the 75-250 ’ Setback. <br />Total Existing Hardcover = 2.611 s.f. which is greater than the 2,371 s.f. that was approved <br />with the 1998 variance. <br />Proposed = 3.477 s.f. <br />0-75 ’ Setback <br />Existing = 1,316 s.f.( 19.5%) <br />Proposed =1,314 s.f. (19.5%) <br />75-250 ’ Setback <br />Existing = 1,295 s.f. (16%) <br />Proposed = 2,163 s.f. (27%) <br />2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit new structure to be constructed within 75 ’ of the <br />lakeshore. The new structure would be an enclosed walkway between the existing house and <br />garage. <br />3.Lot Coverage by Structure is proposed at a level of2,334.2 s.f. This total includes all decks, <br />the existing house, existing garage, and proposed additions. Based on the calculations <br />provided by the applicant the total lot coverage by structure would be 15.9%. To get the total <br />coverage down to a level to not exceed 15% the total structure required to be removed is 134 <br />s.f. The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding the status of existing structural <br />lot coverage. <br />Applicants Statement of Hardship <br />Applicant’s Statement of Hardship is attached as Exhibit A. To summarize, Mr. Rahn has stated the <br />restrictions placed on the garage has created a very unsafe situation as vehicles backing out of the <br />driveway are blinded from view to oncoming traffic. Rest Point Road is a very narrow road that has <br />a steep hill immediately west of Rahn’s driveway. <br />Review <br />Staff has determined the total lot coverage by structure is over 15% which is too much structure on <br />the property.' The total structure should be reduced. Mr. Rahn has stated he believes the actual <br />structure is less due to some removals that would be required to make room for a walkwuy betw een <br />the house and new garage. The primary issue to discuss is the previous actions by the Council in <br />1997 and 1998 that established parameters for new construction on the property. <br />Two conditions on the site have changed since the 1997 and 1998 variance approvals that may have <br />had some impact on what was approved at that time. 1) The area located in the “bowl” on the <br />M3-279I [tavidindiodiiUhn <br />1315 Rest Point R(Md <br />Pigc3or5