Laserfiche WebLink
#15-3767 <br /> 11 August 2015 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> Staff finds that the location of the property, as it is tucked in below the County road and served <br /> by a private frontage road, combined with the 75-foot lake setback, has practical difficulties in <br /> the limited buildable area. In addition, the footprint of the existing home has nonconforming <br /> setbacks on three sides. <br /> The house does not sit squarely on the property as the angle of the home in relation to the lot <br /> lines is skewed. This results in the setbacks between each of the corners of the home and the <br /> lot line being unbalanced. This is not uncommon on lakeshore lots as the home is generally <br /> oriented toward a particular view of the lake rather than aligned with the property lines. <br /> However in this situation it results in ±3 foot setbacks on two corners and ±8 foot setbacks on <br /> the other two. The applicant's plan proposes to maintain the existing±12 foot separation <br /> between their home and the home at 3675 NSD and the ±20 foot separation between their <br /> home and the home at 3685 NSD. Both neighbors have submitted letters of support. <br /> The garage addition will be 2 feet from the lot line; the existing detached garage is at a 1-foot <br /> setback. While the applicant's proposal does not improve the lot line setback overall, in moving <br /> the garage away from the neighbor's shed, the crowding is reduced and the appearance of <br /> massing is slightly improved. Additionally, the proposal lowers the structural coverage level by 9 <br /> square feet. <br /> Structures constructed less than 5 feet from lot lines must comply with the fire protection <br /> requirements of 2015 Minnesota Residential Code Section R302 (attached as Exhibit H). <br /> Considering the additional construction requirements for fire separation, the planning <br /> commission may want to consider if the applicant should be directed to explore whether <br /> it's feasible structurally to modify the proposed second story to meet the LR-1C side <br /> requirement of 10 foot setbacks on each side? Nevertheless, the project will be required <br /> to comply with Section R302. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter <br /> the essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br /> 4. Should the applicant be directed to explore whether it's feasible structurally to <br /> modify the proposed second story to meet the LR-1C side requirement of 10 foot <br /> setbacks on each side? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Planning Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the average setback, lake setback, side setback, <br /> hardcover, and structural coverage variances as requested to permit the construction of the <br /> attached garage and 1 %2 story additions to the existing home with the following conditions: <br /> 1. Applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the MCWD. <br /> 2. The top floor of the proposed home shall comply with the City's definition of"half <br /> story"; no height or number of stories variances are being granted. <br /> 3. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Building <br /> Official during the permit review and construction process. <br />