03-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hbtor>’: In 1967, the property ovvrtcrs appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if the lot was buildabic. After a finding that it was buildable. the existing cottage was razed and a new home was built in 1970. Since this time, there have been no building permits or zoning applications on the property. All of the properties along the lakeside of Park Lane are less than the 140' minimum width and less than the I acre minimum lot area. The property to the north. 583 Park Lane, was granted variances in 2000 for a second story addition to be located 3* from the side lot line and to maintain 65% hardcover in the 75'-250* hardcover zone and maintain 21.7? o of structural coverage. The property to the south. 605 Park Lane, was granted variances in 1986 for additions to be located 7.7' from the side lot line. 3.5 ’ from the rear lot line. Hardship: The applicants have iiKluded their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. 3. 4. 5. 6. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1970, prior to the current zoning ordinance; 2. The application proposes to reduce hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and the 75 ’-250* zone; The proposal will decrease structural coverage on the lot; The existing overhangs on the home are 3 Vi’ in depth. 1 he proposed addition reduces the overhangs to 2 Vi*, still e.xcecding the 1 Vi' overhang encroachment into setbacks pennitted; All but the outer 2’ of roof overhangs are considered structure. The south side main entrvxvay landing is covered by a building protrusion of more than 6 ’ abov*e ground that will not change with the new deck; 7. The lot does not meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the I.R-1B zoning district; 8. Other properties along Park Lane have been granted variances for substandard side and rear yard setbacks; 9. Does the Planning Commission agree that the decorative wall tends to add to the building's massing, and reduces the openness in the neighborhood? 10. There arc no building permits on file for any structure on the property besides the house; 11. In regards to lot coverage, arc the tradeoffs of shed and deck sufficient to allow the second story home additions given the already excessive lot coverage percentage? 12. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: If the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be able to construct an addition on the street side of the home and reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side of the existing home, then the requested variances should be granted with the Shane RuJJ 3/14 2003 Page 3 of 7