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 story 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. 1. The total hardcover on Uic property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway required to safely access the house. Several obslacles 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 view-s to the street as well as allow ing • hides 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 750 s.f iakeside 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 season porch would be located 105 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 3. The property was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The house is approximately 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 */j (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/j (suect side) would have a second story. 1 his concentrates the massing of the structure further from the lakcshore, and eases the burden of the views from adjacent residences tow ards the lakcshore 4. The overall lot coverage by structures increases by 267 s.f Most of the mussing h.»s been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. For a lot coverage 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 e.xeceding 15®/o. ^taff 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 reque.st trees be removed to open site lines. Staff also supports equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before remodeling. Linder 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 drivew-ay 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. •2644 Cvy and Joan Maf^uardt 2617 CaKO Point Rood Vwiancca - PvWk Hcahn| P^tJofS