05-21-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion: hems U and C arc variances that can be reviewed independently from item A. Fxhibit I is a photo of tile existing house showing one donner window. Tlie plans shown in Fxliibit H show two dormers windows being added, llie variances required are to permit an expansion to the building within die 75’ setback from l ake Minnetonka and the average lakeshore setback. However the proposed expansion would not increase the use of the property, ru>r have an impact on the view^ from adjacent residences. The lumse was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. rxhibil G is a photo of the detached garage prior to the roof and deck being removed. I he deck railing would be replaced te a similar character and style ns shoxm in the old photo. Ilie garage is built into a hillside. Access to the deck Is even w ith the grade locatc*d to the rear of the garage. No stairs are required to the roof of the garage, 'nie railing would be required for safety since access to the roof is not restricted. 1 he variance would allow a deck and railing to be located 2 ’ from the street property line and 6* from the side lot line. No expansion to the prex ious use of the structure is proposed, llic garage w as constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-conforming structure that has not reached the end of its useful life. The hill side and size of the lot would make construction of a new garage further from the street dilTicult. In the early 1980s the Council approved a variance to permit die garage to be refurbished in its existing location. I wo primary conditions were placed on that approval. One. the garage would have to be reduced in si/e and cut back to meet a 2 ‘ setback to die street, and secondly, the garage would liavc to be rebuilt widi a flat roof to not block die view of the lake from the neigliK)ring residence. Further review of the retaining walls will require some additioiral infonualion to be submitted by the applicant. 1 lowever, staffhas adv ised the applicant rev iew of the variances for the dormer window additions and deck can be rev iew as all the required plans .ire available. No h.irdcover v arianccs are required City policy allows second story additions when not increasing the foot print area of the building regardless of hardcover excesses. No hardcover variances are required. SlafT Kccnmnicndalion: Staff recommends approval of the variances to permit the two dormer window addition and construction of the replacement deck over the detached deck based on the following finding and hardships: 1. The house was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Ilic proposed dormer windows will not change the character or use of the property. 2. The garage was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-confonning st.mcturc that has not reached the end of its useful life. Topography of the land creates a situation where the garage is built into the hillside allowing the roof to be walked out on without the need for stairs. A 3 ‘ safety railing would allow the property owners to have continued use of the garage roof as a deck area. The hill side and size of the lot would make construction of a new garage further from the street dinicuit. ■?66S MmIo Ufothcit Cuntlroctioa P^2