Variance application - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' #04-2970 ' January 20,2003 � Page 5 of 7 Staff finds that there are convincing hardships to recommend approval of the side setback variance. The applicant isn't proposing to increase the tootprint but merelv to add height, not additional living space, to this corner of the home. The visual effects of the new, raised roof only add approximately 5' to the overall heiaht of the home. It is also worth noting that the setback at the southwestern corner of th.home is 12 feet further lessening any impacts to the neighbor to the south. Staff finds that a hardship exists because additional living space isn't proposed, the height increa;es are minimal w�hen compared to the entire home, and the existing setback is non-conforming. Staff would also conclude that a hardship exists to allo«- approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The hardship arose when the lot to the south, 2050 Shoreline Drive, was built in 1989 in a location that now places the applicant's property in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The characteristics of the two lots are quite different in that the applicant's property is accessed from Bay Rdge Road and the rear of the home faces the lake and Shoreline Drive. Also, the applicant�s property is extremely screened from Shoreline Drive, whereas the property to the south. most affected bv the average lakeshore setback, is accessed off Shoreline Drive and the front of the home faces the lake. The applicant's proposal to change the roof line doesn't affect any views this property has to the lake due to the following; the vie�ti- Iines point extremely northeast, the property to the south has approximately 250' of view-able lakeshore, and a significant tree line sits along the applicant's southern and lake propem-boundary further hindering any views the southern lot may have. Because of these factors staff finds that convincing hardships exist which warrant variance approval. Finally, staff would also recommend approval of the proposed hardcover variance. The applicant is proposing a car port on the western side of the home, which has potential to affect the existing hardcover. However, with the addition of the car port the applicant has proposed to remove approximately 379 s.f. of drivew�a�-and sidewalk. The car port, 22' x 24' is size, will be placed over existing driveway causina an increase of 208 s.f. of hardcover. With 379 s.f. proposed for removal and 208 s.f. proposed ne�i� hardcover, a net decrease of 180 square feet of hardcover is the result (see Exhibit Dj. Because post- construction hardcover will be lower than existing conditions, staff would recommend approval as the applicant has made a good faith effort towards reducing hardcover on the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in reaards to the criteria for"undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Because the property is non-conforming with respect to hardcover, side setbacks, and average lakeshore setback, any improvement to the pr�operty beyond interior remodeling would require a variance. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not