Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 4 8'xl5'. Applicant has submitted floor plans and elevations of Option l's development plan. Applicant notes that floor plans and elevations for Option 2 are similar to those presented for Option 1. Both plans would meet the requirements of the structural coverage ordinance without inclusion of the area of the vacated alley (with alley proposed at 9.1 %, without the alley 12.1 % ). With the inclusion of the vacated area, there are no hardcover variances proposed with either Options 1 or 2. Acquisition of the additional area within the 250-500' setback area has had a major impact on the hardcover percentages, refer to factual review above. Both options will not require side street or street setback variances. Option 1 requires a l' side yard variance and a 6' or 12% rear yard (existing is 6' or 12%). Option 2 will require a 26.55' or 88.5% side setback variance, review Exhibit L. Note the entire addition is located within a required side yard setback. Review Exhibits G and L, even with the acquisition of the alley area, the building envelopes are severely limited. In comparing both options of development, the majority of Option 1 's improvements are located within the legal building envelope. The majority of the improvements for Option 2 are located outside of the legal building envelope. Refer to Exhibits F and K, applicant notes that with Option 2's plan, the mature oaks will be saved within the south street yard. Staff has located two mature maple trees located within the east side yard which would be removed with Option 2. Staff met with the Wicklunds to discuss the variance application and the potential impact on their lake views of their newly constructed residence. Members may remember that the Wicklunds were required to meet all required setbacks with their new construction. A 50' setback was maintained from their south lot line, refer to Exhibit 0. Mr. Stephens has met with Mrs. Wicklund and provided her with information on his plans for development. The 30'+ addition to the east (Option 2) would have a major impact they feel on their lake views. Their home was designed specifically at an angle to capture that view. The structure would be located approximately 63' from their residence. Wicklunds noted they are very happy to see the proposed improvement of the property and ask the City to consider Option 1 as opposed to Option 2. The Wicklunds also noted that the two mature maple trees would be lost with the addition to the east. Wicklunds will submit a written statement setting forth their position. During the review of the Wicklund variance application, the issue was raised as to whether the owner of the subject property had legal access via the driveway easement along the north lot line of the property. It is not certain as to whether the current owner, Mr. Gardner, has claimed his rights via a prescriptive easement through years of use. Applicant may request use