Laserfiche WebLink
r r <br /> Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to construct a new <br /> residence on an existing lot. A lot area variance is required to permit construction of a new <br /> _ residence on an existing (ot consisting of.36 acres in an area'where 1.0 acres is normally requ'ved _ <br /> and;two, a lot width variance to permit construction of a new residence on a lot 74 feet in width <br /> at the shoreline and 61 feet in width at the 75-foot setback where 140 feet is normally required. <br /> In addition,a hardcover variance is being requested � � <br /> to permit 29.8 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed .. <br /> and 27.2 percent currently exists; and a hardcover variance to permit 39.4 percent hardcover <br /> within the 250'-500' zone where 30 percent is normally allowed and 66.8 percent currently exists. <br /> Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing,a three-car garage,with the third stall stacked with a . <br /> two-story breezeway to the existing home and a small la.keside deck. - <br /> Staff finds that due to the narrowness of the lot and over one-third of its area being located within <br /> 75 feet of the lake and not buildable,hardships exists which may warrant some level of hardcover <br /> variance. Sta.ff does not believe,however,that the levels requested are within the levels typically <br />=` approved for rebuilds on a substandard lot of similar size and shape. Gundlach noted Staff has <br /> � compiled some ha�cover data from other rebuild applications from 1999 to 2004,which has . <br /> been included in the Planning Commission's packet. Gundlach indicated Staff is attempting to <br /> utilize this information to help demonstrate the amount of hardcover being approved on . <br /> substandard lots. Staff feels the hardcover percentages should be approximately 25 to 27 percent <br /> in the 75'-250' zone and the footprint size, including the garage, should be approximately 1,800 <br /> . . square feet to 1,900 square feet. Staff would therefore recommend that the applicant be directed � � <br /> to reduce the footprint size,and hardcover within the 75'-250' zone. <br /> , Staff would also,suggest that a turn-around apron consisting of 8' x 8' be included on a revised <br /> plan as City Code Section 18-136(G)requires one due to the county road. <br /> � Staffs recommends the applicant be directed to explore a combination of hardcover and footprint <br /> reductions in an effort to attain hardcover levels and footprint sizes more comparable to those <br /> previously approved variance on similazly sized lots. The revised plans shall incorporate the City <br /> Engineer comments contained in Exhibit G and also proposed house elevations so that <br /> conformance with building height regulations can be confirmed. Gundlach stated Staff would � <br /> like to see the hardcover reduced to no more than 27 percent. . . <br /> Hessburg stated he did not understand at first that the 75-foot setback could not be included, <br /> which has since been revised. Hessburg stated diie to the cost of the lot, it would not be <br /> economically feasible to construct a house on the lot if he is forced to reduce the home any <br /> further. Hessburg pointed out they meet the side yard setbacks.and do not encroach upon the <br /> neighbors' view. <br /> Hessburg noted they do meet the structural coverage limit but are slightly over on hardcover. <br /> Hessburg stated the solution to the problem would be the use of pervious pavers that have been <br /> approved by a number of other cities. Hessburg stated he is unable to meet the hardcover limit <br /> � and still make the house saleable. Hessburg indicated they are willing to make some mirror <br /> adjustments as well as meet the recommendations of the city engineer. <br /> . Rahn stated the concern is the hardcover being proposed in the 75'-250' zone. � <br /> 2 <br />