Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3112 <br /> May 16,2005 <br /> P�ge 7 of 8 <br /> - Structur�►1 Coverage <br /> Lastly, the applicant is requesting a structural coverage variance to permit 16.5% when <br /> 15% is normally allowed. The percentage proposed is based on acceptance of the lot line <br /> rearrangement where 17% structural coverage would be proposed with no lot line <br /> rearrangement. The footprint proposed is 2,233 s.f-. which would meet 15%, howevei� <br /> with the addition of the 230 s.f. deck, a variance is needed. Staff would recomniend <br /> deival of this request as the house footprint can be reduced to allow for a deck. The <br /> existing structural coverage level is conforming at 13.8%. <br /> �OT LINE�-ARRANGEMEN'T __ _ _ _ <br /> In an effort to construct an attached garage, the applicant has proposed a lot line <br /> rearrangement that would result in 393 s.f. of area being added to the applicant's lot and <br /> 389 s.f. of area is subtracted from 1190 Wildhurst Trail, which is the lot to the direct <br /> north. Staff has suggested that equal amounts of area be traded so that neither lot <br /> becomes more or less non-conforming in area than the other lot. This remains staffls <br /> reconunendation. <br /> An additional concern with the proposed lot line rearrangement is that the applicant's lot <br /> will be losing 2' of width at the lake where 140' is normally required and 56' would be <br /> proposed. The lot to the north will be gaining 2' of lakeshore where a non-conforming <br /> width of approximately 57' cl�rrently exists. Staff would reconunend that a <br /> rearrangement be explored whereby no lakeshore is traded, or equal amounts are traded, <br /> as both widths are currently non-conforming. <br /> The rearraiigement as proposed also results in an increase in 1190 Wildhurst Trail's 75'- <br /> 250' hardcover slightly. There are no variance records on file for tlus lot and staff would <br /> hesitate to recommend that the City fornzally grant a variance permitting almost 46% <br /> hardcover when 25% is normally allowed. <br /> Lastly, because a Iot line rearrangement request is considered a subdivision, staff would <br /> recommend that a utility easement be obtained over the existing sewer line. A force main <br /> and gravity line rttn parallel to each other and an easement 20' centered over the two lines <br /> should be required. This includes both lots involved in tlie lot line rearrangement. The <br /> applicant should be questioned on whether 20' easements can be obtained over both lots. <br /> Obtaining a 20' easement centered over the line puts the southeast corner of the proposed <br /> lakeward addition within the easement. This should be revised as no new struchu•e <br /> should come within 10' of an existing sewer line. <br /> ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION <br /> 1. Should this application be reviewed as a rebuild? <br /> 2. Can structural and hardcover reductions be attained? <br /> 3. Should the location of an existing structure that is being remodeled act as a hardship <br /> for loc�ting new sti•ucture? Further, could a inore unobstructed front yard be attained <br /> if the applicant appt•oached the project as � rebuild? <br /> 4. Should equal arnounts of area a�ld width be traded so that no lot becomes more or less <br />