Laserfiche WebLink
FILE# 13-3636 r <br /> 15 Jan 2014 <br /> Page 2 of 2 <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 118,852 s.f. (2.7 acre) 232' @ OHWL& 280' @ 75' SB <br /> Structural Coverage: <br /> The property exceeds 1.99 acres therefore, according to City Code Section 78-1685 structural <br /> coverage or massing standards do not apply. <br /> Hardcover Calculations: <br /> Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Revised Proposed <br /> Overlay District Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Hardcover <br /> Tier <br /> 1,126 <br /> 29,713 s.f. 14,050 s.f. 14,086 s.f. 1,149 w/in <br /> Tier 1 118,852 s.f. � a � ( o � W��n (11.8%) 75' <br /> 25 /0 11.8/0 75, <br /> Setbacks: <br /> LR-1A Required Existing Revised Proposed <br /> Rear 50' +200' No Change <br /> East Side 30' 28.6' existing house 25.3' garage addition <br /> West Side 30' 150' pool deck No change <br /> 178' house <br /> Lakeshore 75' 61' pool deck �Z� garage addition <br /> Wetland 35' 12' No change <br /> Average Lakeshore The entire home is located ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. <br /> Analysis& Recommendation <br /> The proposed garage addition as revised will encroach 4.7 feet into the required 30 foot side yard <br /> setback. The garage portion of the home currently meets the 30 foot side setback. As revised, the <br /> addition will be approximately 72 feet from the lake where a 75 foot setback is required. <br /> Approximately 14 square feet of additional structure within the 75 foot setback is proposed. <br /> The applicant's revised detailed garage plans better clarify the existing usable space within the garage. <br /> However, Staff continues to find that creating a more nonconforming structure is out of character <br /> with the neighborhood. The revised addition adds mass within the eastern side setback area and also <br /> within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that enforcing the <br /> provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive them of the reasonable use of the property. Planning <br /> Staff continues to recommend denial of the variances. <br /> Action Requested <br /> The Planning Commission should review and discuss the applicant's revised request as well as the <br /> enclosed comments from the neighbor to the east and make a recommendation to the City Council. If <br /> the Commission determines that practical difficulties exist which support granting the variances, those <br /> practical difficulties should be clearly stated for the record. <br />