Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA19-000048 (2967 Casco Pt Rd) VAR EX C Draft PC Minutes3. LA19-000048 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION, 2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE 6:52 P.M. – 7:15 P.M. Robert Schmidt, Premium Construction, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback, hardcover lot area, and lot width variances to construct a new home. As part of the project, the existing home and detached garage will be removed. The proposal also requires lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances. The average lakeshore setback is unique for this property due to the neighboring lot to the north. This lot is flag shaped, with a long narrow finger providing the lake frontage and the buildable portion set much further back. Due to this configuration, the subject lot is not buildable without an average lakeshore setback variance. The current home is nonconforming due to this extreme setback and hardcover. The applicant is proposing to build the new home with more massing forward of the average lakeshore setback compared to what is there today. The proposal also requires lot area and lot width variances. The hardcover will decrease from the current level by approximately 300 square feet under the proposed plan but will still be over the 25 percent maximum. Staff finds that due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks, there are practical difficulties supporting granting the lot area, lot width, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback variances for construction of a new home. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommends the home have gutters and a drainage plan be developed to ensure no runoff is directed to the neighboring properties or roadway. The neighbors have submitted signatures of support. Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the City Engineer’s comments for the lot area, lot width and hardcover variances. The Planning Commission should discuss the applicant’s desire to utilize the property for a larger home footprint. If the Commission finds the proposed home meets the practical difficulties, Staff recommends a motion to approve the average lakeshore setback variance. Oakden displayed an annotated site plan and noted the neighboring properties are depicted in purple and the proposed house footprint is in orange. The diagonal red line depicts the average lakeshore setback. Ressler asked if the grade is existing. Oakden indicated the grade is the existing home footprint. The proposed home is a little more forward to the lake and there will be more massing to the property to the north. Ressler asked if Staff has an aerial that shows the shoreline. Oakden pointed out the subject property with the existing home. The property to the north is set further back, which creates an unusual average lakeshore setback. Erickson stated it is really the flag lot next door that creates the situation, and if you look at the other neighbors, that problem does not exist. Ressler asked whether Staff has seen other similar situations where the City has allowed an encroachment further towards the water. Oakden noted that was one of the questions outlined in Staff report. The current house does encroach into the average lakeshore setback, so it is nonconforming as it exists today, and the proposal is requesting to be closer to the lake. The applicant is looking to be more in line with the two other nearby residences, and without an average lakeshore setback variance, this lot would be almost unbuildable. The question is whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the degree to which is being proposed. McCutcheon asked what the side setbacks are. Oakden indicated the property is allowed a 7.8-foot setback and to the south they are proposing an 8-foot setback and to the north they are proposing a 12.5-foot setback. McCutcheon commented drainage is always a concern when the houses are that close, but that will be dealt with at the time of building permit. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Libby commented since there is not that much difference between the existing footprint and what is being proposed on the lakeshore side, this is something that would be worthy of the Planning Commission’s consideration and that he would like to hear further discussion. The lakeshore setback is the primary concern due to the possibility of setting a precedent, but under the circumstances, the proposal is not that much more than what currently exists. Libby stated if you look at the alignment for the average lakeshore setback without the house to the north that is further set back, the line would be in a different location. Erickson stated his sense of the average lakeshore setback is to regulate the situation where houses are at similar setbacks. The rules create an issue when there are flag lots and the main house is located quite a bit back from the other homes in the area. A good item to discuss at some point is the City’s future treatment of flag lots and whether something can be done with that ordinance to deal with this type of situation. Erickson stated at the present time he would support the application. McCucheon stated common sense-wise, the new house aligns with the other neighbors and will not be extending into the lake setback any more than the neighbors are, so he would support it. Bollis commented he likes the fact the hardcover is being reduced. The intent of the lakeshore setback ordinance is to protect the view shed and it does not appear the view shed would be any different for the house to the north, so he would be in favor of it. Gettman indicated he has no concerns with the application. Ressler asked if structural coverage is being increased. Oakden indicated it is but that it will be within the allowable amount. The current hardcover is at 30.5 percent and they are proposing to decrease it to 29.5 percent, but it is still over the allowable 25 percent. Ressler stated it does make sense, but the difficulty he is having is regulating under the current rules. It looks like there is further encroachment to the neighboring property, which is an issue. The neighbor’s property will not be able to build that close since their lot is too close. Ressler stated in his view the neighbor is being impacted in two ways and that he has having a hard time mitigating that. It seems like they could maybe move it back a little bit to make it have less of an impact on the neighbor. Gettman asked whether there are a bunch of trees over there. Oakden indicated there are some trees there but that the applicant could better address that. Leslie Oak, 2967 Casco Point Road, stated she met with the neighbors regarding their proposal. The previous owners had planted a tree line from where the property line jogs all the way down to the lake. There is a 25-foot elm and probably five or six pine trees that are around 15 feet. The neighbors are in complete support of the new house, but he asked if those trees could be cut down, and they are willing to do that. Robert Schmidt, Builder, indicated he worked with Staff and they suggested they make a design change with the porch, which has been moved to help mitigate as much as they could any massing concerns. Ressler commented the tree screening does make a difference, but that it does not necessarily assist him in approving as much as what is being requested. Ressler stated he can understand the difficulty with the neighboring property but that he is not sure if he would be in favor of encroaching further. McCutcheon commented this application seems similar to one the Planning Commission reviewed approximately a month ago where there was an irregular shaped lot. The fact that the applicants changed the design to accommodate that and that they are willing to cut down some trees to help improve the neighbor’s view, he would be in support of it. With the exception of the flag lot, it lines up with the other neighbors. Libby commented obstruction of lake views is a pretty big deal but the removal of the trees kind of makes it a moot point. Libby stated he would tend to favor the side setbacks and the average lakeshore setback. Erickson moved, McCutcheon seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000048, Premium Construction, 2967 Casco Point Road, variance, as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Ressler Opposed.