03-19-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The second story addition is within the 10’ side setback. Adding a second story would place a full two stor>’ structure only 2.64’ from the side lot line. The adjacent house is more than 20’ away allowing for adequate separation between the existing buildings. However, redevelopment or additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings. Hcvletv of ilardshin 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 block much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron would make more .sense) and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street ns well as allowing vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant ’s property. 2. TItc property as developed c.xcecds the allowed hardcover. A large 750 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 scasoO porch would be located 105 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Miiuietonka. 3. 'Ihe property was developed prior to tlw adoption of the zoning ordinance. TIte house is approximately 10’ from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a poitit where the house is only 2.85 ’ from the property hire. A second story addition has been dedgned to leave the front '/j (lakeside) of the existing house to t»ne story. Only the back '/; (street side) would have a second story ’. This concentrates the massing of the stiucture further from the lakeshorc. and cases the burden of the \ iew s from adjacent residences ti>w ards the lake.shorc. 4. I he overall lot c(»verage by structures increases by 267 s.f Most of the ma.ssing has been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. 1 or a lot cov erage variance to l>e 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 Rfcommcnd alloti Staff can support the project to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines without the property ow’ners having to request trees be removed to open site lines. Staff also supports eqinl replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before remodeling. Under that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f. on the lot. The reduction in t« • d structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24’ X 26’ two stall garage and not require an> other stnrctural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed driv eway be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron. The result is a net 75-250 ’ hardcover increase from 3.490 s.f. (27.3%) to approximately 4,650 s.f. (36.5%), the majority of which is a result of added driveway. The stated hardship for the increase is primarily safety of access to this busy portion of Casco point Road. Also. StalTsuggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot line. •2S44 Gao 26l7Caico Poml Roail Vwianert •• P«iW*c Hcanog Pa|« 3 or 5