Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # 11-3505 <br />10 May 2011 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Background <br />In order to repair an ice dam issue with the existing roof the property owner would like to <br />reconstruct the roof over the older portion of their home with a slightly steeper pitch. The <br />resulting increase in height would be an additional 2' 11" from the existing roof. The existing <br />home does not meet the 30-foot side setback as required for principal structures within the LR- <br />1A zoning district. Technically the increased roof height in the substandard setback is <br />considered an expansion of an existing nonconformity; side yard setback variances are required <br />in order to do the project as proposed. <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET <br />Lot Area/Width: <br />LR-1A <br />Lot Area <br />Lot Width <br />Required <br />87,120 s.f. (2 acres) <br />200' <br />Actual <br />41,329 s.f. (0.95 acre) <br />115, <br />Setbacks: <br />LR-1A <br />Required <br />Existing/No Change Proposed <br />Lakeshore <br />75' <br />185' <br />Rear <br />50' <br />175' to Bay Ridge Road <br />South Side <br />30' <br />16.7' <br />North Side <br />30' <br />14.1' <br />Average Lakeshore <br />The existing home meets the average lakeshore setback. <br />Side Yard Setback Variance <br />The applicants' property is nonconforming with respect to area and width. The existing home <br />does not meet the required 30-foot side setback on either side lot line. The applicants are <br />attempting to alleviate a water/ice dam issue caused by the low pitched roof over the older <br />portion of the existing home. In order to do so an increase in height and pitch is proposed. No <br />additional living space is being proposed. The 2' 11" increase in height within the substandard <br />side setback area will not encroach closer than the existing home to the properties on either <br />side of the applicants' property. <br />Updated Variance Analysis <br />As the planning commission is aware, there have been multiple changes to law regarding how a <br />municipality must review an application for a variance. The "undue hardship" analysis has been <br />replaced with the "practical difficulties" analysis. Staff is currently working on updating the <br />ordinance to ensure that it conforms to the statutory analysis of practical difficulties. While the <br />current code directs staff, planning commission and the council to perform a "hardship" <br />analysis; this application will actually be viewed consistent with the new practical difficulties <br />analysis. <br />1s7627v2 2 <br />