04-22-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 3 ^proximateiy 9* from the neighboring detached garage. The City has consistently attempted to maintain a minimum 10' setback between structures, and the code requires a separation of 10' between principal and accessory structures. The proposed house will be setback approximately 22' from the neighboring hou.se to the southwest, which also encroaches its required side yard (see survey). Lot coverage by structures is proposed at 1.795 s.f. or 21.0%. When the lot coverage ordinance was developed, it was recognized that even on very' small lots the property owner should be allowed a minimum 1,500 s.f. envelope for structures including the principal structure and the garage (Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): E.xception ). In this case 15% of lot area would be 1,282.5 s.f., so the applicants' 1,500 s.f allowance would be equivalent to 17.5% lot coverage. The proposed excess therefore is 295 s.f. or 3.5%. It can be argued that this is a variance created by attempting to construct a house of a certain size. Applicants ’ hardship statement suggests that in the conte.xt ot new construction, this house is not oversized and the footprint is not excessive. Certainly a house can be built that meets the 1,500 s.t. standard, but to do so would essentially eliminate the porch, deck, and another 50 s.t. ot house or garage. The hardcover proposal for 46% in the 75-250' zone where only 25% is allowed, might be somewhat tempered by the fact that there will be virtually no hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone. Also note that the overall h'lrdcover on the property yields appropriately 26% where the DNR standard would be 25% of the lot in hardcover. Drainage Drainage on the property is of significant concern to the City, because this property and the Seran property adjacent are the receivers of significant amounts of runoff from Highwood Road. One chanue which staff would strongly recommend is that the bottom of the swale to the northeast be centered on the lot Ime between applicants ’ residence and the Seran residence. Staff will be discussing this drainage pla.n with the City Engineer to determine if there are additional concerns. Note that the existing catch basin, storm drain tile and rip rap spillway were apparently constructed by the neighboring property owner, and it may be appropriate to keep that storm drain in place if the rip rap spillway is moved back to the 75 ’ setback line. Issues for Discussion 1, Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting the lot area and width variances? i I