04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3099 A|>ril 18,2005 Page 4 of 5 decrease of 160 s.f. results, a variance is required as 12.7% hardcover will remain where 0% is normally allowed and 14% currently exists. 75*-250 ’ Hardcover Variance The applicants arc proposing to construct a roof over the existing entry way and stoop and also a pergola just to the east of the entryway. The covered entry will be placed over existing hardcover and only the posts (14 s.f.) for the pergola arc considered hardcover. The applicants h''ve proposed to remove a concrete walk around the north side of the detached garage to ensure no increases in hardcover result. While a net decrease of 76 s.f. is proposed, a hardcover variance is necessaiy as 33.6% hardcover will remain when 2S% is normally allowed and 33.9% currently exists. Lake Setback Variance The applicants have proposed to construct a deck located on the lake side of the home off the main floor of a walk-out style home. The existing home exists within 75 ’ of the lake at a setback of 60*. Currently a patio also exists on the lake side of the home at a setback of 41*. The {q)plicants have proposed to remove this patio and construct a 15 ’ x 15 ’ deck where an existing 6’ x 14’ patio exists at the NE comer of the home. A variance is required as a 75 ’ lake setback is normally required and a 58 ’ lake setback is requested for the proposed deck. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /H coittUerlMg appllcatloHsfor variance, the Planning Conunlssion shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, spfety and welfare of the conununity, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to thepnbUc safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Conutrisshn shall consider reconunending approval for variances from the lUeral provisions of the Zoning Code In instancLs where their Uriel utforcement would cause undue hardship because of cIrcumUances unique to the InJ-' > ual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonuraled that such actions will be in keepint vlth the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds there is a valid hardship to support granting of the requested variance to allow the lakeside deck and that the hardship is the location of the existing home on the lot. The home sits within 75 ’ of the lake and was constructed prior to 1970, where the 75 ’ setback was adopted around 1973. Also, the proposed deck would not get any closer to the lake than the existing home and the homes on both sides of the applicants’ sit within 75 ’ of the lake, not altering the existing character. Therefore, any desire to have a lakeside deck, short of removing the existing home, would require variances. The applicant has proposed to remove a patio in the lake yard at the southwest corner of the home to accommodate the hardcover for the deck. In doing this, hardcover will be pulled back an additional 17’ within the required 75 ’ setback. Lastly, removal of that patio will eliminate an existing non-conformity as it does not meet the required average J ^1 s' 1