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 Lot Area Lot Width <br /> Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' <br /> Actual 41,329 s.f. (0.95 acre) 115' <br /> Setbacks• <br /> LR-1A Required Existing/No Change Proposed <br /> Lakeshore 75' 185' <br /> Rear 50' 175'to Bay Ridge Road <br /> South Side 30' 16.7' . <br /> North Side 30' 14.1' <br /> Average Lakeshore The existing home meets the average lakeshore setback. <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <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 eicisting 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 /> is�627�2 2 <br />