04-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 3 approximately 9’ fiom the neighboring detached garage. The City has consistently attempted to maintain a minimum 10' setback betv»’een 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 house 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 propert>- 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): Exception). 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 e.xcess 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 context of 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.f. standard, but to do so would essentially elir->inate the porch, deck, and anothei 50 s.f. of 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 hardcover 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 nmoff from Highwood Road. One change which staff would strongly recommend i^ that the bottom of the swale to the northeast be centered on the lot line between applicants’ residence and the Seran residence. Staff will be discussing this drainage plan 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 stoiin 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?