DCPZP-2008-00297 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 of 7 March 27,2008 Motion: Long/Studz to grant a variance of 80.00 feet from the minimum required 100 feet lot width at the building setback line and a variance of 25 feet from the minimum required 35 feet rear yard, to permit removal and replacement of existing single family residence and garage as proposed. Facts of the Case: 1. The existing lot is part of the Waucheeta subdivision, platted in 1935; it has public sewer, is zoned R-2 Residential, and is located in the Shoreland district of Lake Waubesa. The lot includes the Swartzmillers' existing house, which Stefan Swartzmiller said was about 75 years old, and a detached garage. A Native American burial mound is located just north of the Swartzmillers' north lot line. State Statutes require a minimum setback of 5 feet from the toe of the slope of the mound; the owners are working with the State Historic Preservation office to protect the mound and its buffer area. They also hope to preserve several historic oak trees. 2. At 19,500 more or less square feet (SF), the lot exceeds the minimum required 15,000 SF lot area in the Shoreland district. The lot is "flag-shaped"with a 20.00 foot wide "flagpole" access to the northerly "flag" portion. The building setback line is located at the minimum setback from road as per Section 10.17(4), or 20 feet north of the right-of-way of McConnell Street. (An earlier interpretation showed the building setback line located 10 feet north of the south line of the "flag" portion of the lot, shown as 124.80 feet, but this has been determined to be a "side" lot line.) 3. Because the road frontage is on McConnell Street, the north side of the lot is considered to be the rear yard as per Section 10.10(35) —definition of"Lot line, rear." If this lot had frontage on the west side, the north line would be a side lot line. The minimum side yard in the R-2 district is 10 feet. The minimum rear yard setback in the R-2 district is 35 feet, and 25 feet in the R-3 district. 4. The owners propose to remove the existing house and garage and replace it with a two-story home and attached two-stall garage with an office above. They will use parts of the existing foundations of the house and garage to minimize land disturbance. They described their intention to maintain natural beauty and the existing landscaping. 5. The proposed house would be 85 feet more or less from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (farther from the lake than the existing house), and would meet all setbacks and lot coverage requirements except for the rear (north) yard. (Proposed lot coverage would be 20.4%.) The proposed house would be 10 feet from the north lot line, which is the "rear" lot line in this case. 6. Two previous variances were granted for similar rear yard setbacks on nearby McConnell Street lots: Variance 1621 (10/22/1987), granted a 27 foot variance from the minimum 35 foot rear yard for a new house at 4332 McConnell St (across the road); Variance 2502 (05/26/1994) granted a 30 foot variance from the minimum 35 foot rear yard for a full second story addition to a house at 4334 McConnell Street (the property located immediately southeast of the Swartzmillers). 7. Kornetzke, the owner of the house at 4334 McConnell Street at the time of Appeal 2502 and today, told the Board that the Swartzmillers' proposed house location would be appropriately located (not too close to his house), that the variance would protect the lake, and that it would be consistent with the similar rear yard variance for his own house (Appeal 2502). Conclusions: 1) Unnecessary Hardship: Denying this variance would be unnecessarily burdensome to the owners, who wish to continue to use their Residential-zoned lot for its permitted purpose. 2) Unique Limitations of the Property: The flag-shaped configuration and age of this non-conforming lot, the existing terrain, the neighboring Indian Mound, and the close proximity of the neighboring home are unique limitations. The owners also tried unsuccessfully to acquire land from adjacent owners. 3) No Harm to Public Interests: The owners' proposal shows sensitivity to the purposes of the Shoreland Ordinance and to the adjoining property owners: They expressed intentions to protect shore cover and existing historic trees, to reduce runoff toward the lake, and to move the new house farther from the lake. Motion carried: 4—0.