pf_02744 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. (c) building setback plans prior to the building permit approvaL The motion unanimously carried 5 -0. Planning File 2744: John Torgerson request for a variance to the zoning ordinance at 337 S, Owasso Boulevard to allow for a 251 front yard variance. Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing and requested Michael Falk to provide a background report. Falk noted that the Torgerson site is a 7,000 square foot lot with a house built in the 1930s. The zoning is Rl and the comprehensive plan is low density. The site is subject to the Shoreland Ordinances. He noted that the existing garage is located partially within the railroad easement. The proposal by Torgerson to raise the garage and deck would allow additional space for the house, living space, and a 20' wide garage. The house would be entirely within the lot boundaries. Falk noted that using the existing Shoreland Code, the new house would not be closer to the lakeshore than the existing structure. He noted that the setback between the shoreland and the house is approximately 30'. The staff considers the request a front yard variance request from the railroad right~of-way and not a lakeshore variance. The 25' front yard variance would allow the new structure to set within. 5' of the front or south property line, which is similar to setbacks on houses. The staff recommended approval of the 25' front yard setback variance. Member Wall asked if the two additions including the garage and the living and bedroom space were needed, and whether the garage could be moved back on the site 25' reducing the need for a variance. He also asked if a second story could be placed on the existing structure. Wall asked if the purchase agreement was included in the packet and whether the owner had submitted a letter supporting and authorizing this project. Member Sandstrom asked for clarification regarding the size of the lot and the setback from the lake (7,000 sq, ft., 301). Member Sandstrom asked whether the new ordinance would address this issue, and how the impervious surfaces would be treated under the new code. Member Harms stated that if the garage were built where the addition is currently, a driveway would still be needed and still would create an impervious surface of the same size as the proposed house addition. . Member Wall asked if there was a problem with the railroad right-of-way, Michael Falk responded that it did not show up on the county parcel map and has not been a factor in other variances along the same private road. In response to a question by Member Sandstrom, Falk stated that the private road is access granted by the railroad. Wall stated that this was an opportunity to upgrade the site and the neighborhood.