02-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^5-3087 Kcliruiiry 22, 2005 Piigc 5 of 6 be consCructed above the existing second story, having the potential to obstruct lake views tliat adjacent neighbors may have. IlardiihipStatement . . , ,, Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in F.xliibil H, and should be a.sked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In comldering nppllcallom for variance, Ihe Planning Contmhxion shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon Ihe health, safety and welfare of the connnunlly, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval far variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their .strict enforcement would cause undue hardship becau se of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of Pte Orono Zoning Code. _______ Staff finds that the applicant has iu)t .sufficiently demonstrated a hard.ship to justify approval of 29% when 27% was approved in 1989, with the .stipulation that no additional hardcover be allowed. 'I he propo.setl 2% increa.se consi.sts mainly of a third garage stall and the driveway to serve it. While stuff rccogni/cs the need for additional .space for this particular family, that alone is not a hardship inherent to the land which is part ol the hardship requirements. With this proposal, the applicants not only wish to construct a 3- stall garage, hut no lakeside deek or patios are proposed (a small lakeside deck is proposed off the ma.stcr bedroom suite above existing .structure/hardcover). Stall Ihuls this to he somewhat problematic with the potential for future requests for hardcover variances for either a lakeside patio or deck. Should a lakeside patio or deck be inchkleil the hardcover level would likely raise above .30% with the current propo.sal. Staff also fmds that the applicant .should be required to remove the 230 s.f. of landscape fabric within the 0-75 ’ zone us no hardship has been ilemonstrated in onler to keep it. Should the applicant agree to removing this material no hardcover variance for the 0-75 ’ zone would be required. Staff fmds that this area can easily be re-sodileil so as not to act as hardcover. 'fhe findings of the 1989 hardcover approval indicate support ba.sed on the mere fact that fi net reiluction t)f hardcover was proposed with reduction of the lakesiile patio, fliis begs the question of whether the excess 0-75 ’ shoreline area to the northwest, u.sed in reviewing variances today, constitutes justification ol the requested 2Vo hardcover increase. Although used in the past, this particular layout dilTers as it is not benefiting stormwater infiltration ol the hardcover within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone and therclorc would not justify approval above the 1989 variance level. The applicant is also requesliug a|tproval of an average lakeshoie setback variance While the new construction of a 3-cai g.iiage meets the average lake.shore requirement, con.struction of the proposed half story above the existing footprint dt»es not. Stall fmds that basal on the 1989 average lake.sluae .setback approval and the orientation ol the