Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 IS <br /> <br />a no <br />that 3 feet from a side yard <br />Setback Permit. <br /> <br /> <br />5.7 Section 1016.14B (Water Management Overlay District Lot Standards) requires new <br />single family residential lots to be a minimum of 100 feet in width and 15,000 sq. ft. in <br />size. This Code requirement was in place back in 1998 when the previous variances were <br />reviewed (and granted) but the project report was silent in its review of both lot width and <br />size as it related to the Section. Staff assumes that the creation of the 78 foot wide parcel <br />in 1987 met the requirements of the Code, therefore, a variance was not deemed <br />necessary. However, for clarity sake, the City Planner has determined that a variance <br />from both the width and size requirements is necessary. <br /> <br />5.8 Section 1016.l6A requires a principal structure setback of75 feet from the Ordinary High <br />Watermark (0 HW) or "where structure exist on the adj oining lots on both sides of a <br />proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to <br />the average setback of adjoining structures from the ordinary high water level, provided <br />the proposed building site is not located in the shore impact zone or in a bluff zone". The <br />Shore Impact Zone is establishes as a setback equal to 50% of the standard 75 foot OHW <br />setback or 37.5. In 1998 when the previous variances were granted, the city utilized the <br />average setback among adjacent structures to conclude that the parcel had a required 46.5 <br />foot OHW setback, and that the Kelsey proposal required a 9 foot variance. The analysis <br />seems logical, however, the Shore Impact Zone "setback" is compromised and therefore, <br />the variance should have been granted form the standard 75 foot setback and not from the <br />altered setback (structure average). Based on the submittal by Mr. Brown, a 39 foot <br />variance is necessary to allow the principal structure 36 feet from the OHW. <br /> <br />5.9 Section 1016.26Bl (Storm Water Management Impervious Surface Coverage) reads: <br />Impervious surface coverage of a site shall not exceed 25% of the site area in a shoreland <br />or wetland overlay district unless storm water is conveyed to an approved, on site or <br />regional storm water ponding/retention facility designed to accommodate the increased <br />run-off prior to discharge from the site into public waters or wetlands. A review of the <br />former plan and variance approvals concludes that a house plan had not been submitted <br />and the parcel was limited to the 25% requirement. The Brown proposal includes a house <br />and attached garage plan with a building footprint of 2,032 sq. ft (principal structure of <br />1,297 sq. ft. and attached garage of 735 sq. ft.) and 587 sq. ft. of driveway/stoop/sidewalk <br />(estimate) 2,600 sq. ft. of impervious coverage. <br /> <br />PF3624_RVBA_030205.doc- Page 4 of 8 <br />