Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />Hardcover C'alcuialioiis: <br />FILE «04.30i>2 <br />4 January 2005 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Hardcover 7x)iiv Total Area in <br />Tone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />250 - 500 13,633 s.f.4,090 s.f. <br />(30%) <br />1,511 s.f.* <br />(11%) <br />1,576 s.f. <br />(11.5%) <br />500- 1000 <br />4^ i* 1 n A ««««%.• « <br />10,176 s.f. <br />A S a » I ^ M ^m, M ^ 1 ^ A m ^ <br />3,561 s.f. <br />(357«) <br />.3,404 s.f.* <br />(33.5%) <br />.3,418 s.f. <br />(33.5 %) <br />Rear Yard Setback Variance <br />In 2000, llic Skoojjs received a front yard and rear yard setback variance in order to <br />construct a garage and kitchen additions to their existing home. Upon approval of tlic <br />variances the applicants constructed their garage addition, but were not able to construct <br />their kitchen addition withiii ihe one-year time period and Mie rear yard setbac k variance <br />expired. <br />Hardcover Variance <br />During the 2000 variance review the hardcover calculations were inconectly based on Ihe <br />entire properly being located within the 500’- 1000’ /.one. With the renewal variance <br />request stall' required an updated survey and revised Iwrdcover calculations to .show the <br />newly constructed garage and the addition of a pool. Tho.se revisions were submitted by <br />the applicants and reflected portions of the property within the 250’ - 500’ t'one. <br />Currently the 250’ -500’ /.one is within hardcover limits but including rock lined with <br />pla.slic the 500’ lOOO’ zone is exceeding the 35% limit. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Fonn attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be i'.sked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />lit considering applications for variance, (he Planning Commission sliaii consider the cjfeci of the <br />pioposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, iight and air, danger of fire, risk to the pnbiic safety, and the effect on vatnes of property in <br />the surrounding area. Ihe Ptanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for vaiiances <br />from the literal provisions of the /oning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship hi’canse of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions wilt he in keeping with the <br />Sfnn( anti iiuviii of ihe Oroiio /otiiny Coile. <br />Stall finds that due to the size of tlic applicants ’ lot and the other lots in this <br />neighborhood and the 2-acrc zoning district setback limitations there may be nardship to <br />justity gianting the rear yard .seiback variance, however, the cx'stmg home is cuiiently <br />conibrmmg with only the deck enc.'^oaching into the 50’ .setback. With respect to <br />hardcover, upon removal of the plastic liners in the rock beds the property is within Ihe <br />35% limit for the 500’ 1000’ zone. <br />3