09-09-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2167 August 16, 1996 Page 2 Summary' of Request This application continues to evolve as the days go by. Applicants originally proposed to construct a new residence on this vacant 1.0 acre lot just outside the 75' setback line, and the size of the house plus necessary driveways to serve it at that location yielded 30.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. AddlHonally. at that original location the house would have encroached into the defined floodplain alongside the house, raising two issues of concern: 1. Placement of structure and fill within a designated flood plain, potentially reducing the available amount of storage in the wetland and thereby causing an increase in flood height; and 2. Proposed construction of a basement garage at a floor elevation less than the required 1' above the 100-year flood plain, results in the possibility of flooding that basement garage. Both of these concerns were the impetus of the original request, although the City technically by state statute could not grant a variance to allow- the basement floors belov; the 935.5' Regulatory Flooilplain Elevation. The applicant has since raised the house to 935.5', moved it out of the defined floodplain, and reduced the driveways and decks in an attempt to meet the 25% 75-250' hardcover limit. However, they still are at 26.03% and cannot apparently cut back any further without reducing the size of the house. Additionally, applicants surveyor is attempting to balance the cutsTills on the property to result in less than 100 cubic yards of fill needing to be imported. However, as of this writing it is unknown whether a CUP is needed. Hardcover Variance The e.xisting vacant lot is conforming to the 1/2 acre, 100’ width standards of the LR-IC zone (See Exhibit D). The applicants' need for a hardcover variance is entirely a function of the size of the house proposed for the site. The house has a 4100 s.f footprint including the 3-stall garage, in addition to only 40 s.f of sidewalk shown and a modest 340 s.f deck. The driveay configuration, entering at the side rather than at an end, results in a larger apron witliiii the 75- 250' zone. Re-design of the garage configuration could potentially eliminate some driveway and a backup/parking apron could be placed behind the 250' zone line. UTiile Planning Commission might find that the proposal is not out of character within the context of Casco Point, there is no question that the need for the vaiiance is created by the applicant and not based on a hardship caused by any unique feature of the property. There is likely no adequate justification for granting the variance based on the standards of section 10.08, Subd. 3.