02-21-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The second stor>’ addiiion is within the lO* side setback. Adding a second story would place a full two sior>' structure only 2.64* from tlic side lot line. The adjacent house is more than 20* away allowing for adequate separation bclNscen the existing buildings. Ilowcx'cr, redevelopment or additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings. Rtview of Hardship 1. The total hardcover on the property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway required to safely access the house. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole bloek much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. Ihe attached garage allows the vehicles o back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron would make more scn.se) and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street os well as allowing vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant's property. 2. The property as developed exceeds the allowed hardcover. A large 730 s.f. lakeside deck along the lakeside of the house would being removed to reduce some hardcover closest to the lake. A 14' X 14' four season porch would be constructed in its place. The four .seastm porch would be located 105' from the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka. 3. The properly was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The house is opproximately 10' from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a point where the house is only 2.85 ’ from the property line. A second story addition has been designed to leave the front V: (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/j (street s:de) would have a second story. This concentrates the ma.ssing of the structure further from the lakeshorc. and eases the burden of the \ iews from adjacent residences towards the lakeshore. 4. The overall lot coverage by stmetures increases b> 267 s.f. Most of the massing has been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. For a lot co\ erage variance to be approved an actual hardship must be demonstrated to allow the increase in structure. The Council has in many situations allowed a property to replace the total existing structure when remodeling, but it is uncommon to allow a net increase when already exceeding 15%. Staff Recommendation Staff can support the project to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines without the property owners having to request trees be removed to open site liner.. Staff also supports equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before renu>deling. Under that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f. on the lot. The reduction in total structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24' X 26’ two stall garage and not require any other structural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed driveway be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron. Also, Staff suggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot line. •;M4 G») and foao Mar^uardl 2617 Casco Po«l Road Vananen -hMicHranne Pi«cJor5