05-09-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1'^ FILE #05-3105 6 April 2005 Page 4 of 4 ftom Mr# MUmr/ pnvMM$ cftkt Zoning Cotie In Imloncet where their strict enforcement wouU cense nnine henlsh^ hMinse of drcumstences online to the MMthiel property uniler consUereHon, anil shea reeemmeni eppravel onfy when It Is gemonstretetl that snch actions will he In keeping wUh the ^rlrH ami Intent ef the Orono Zoning Cade, Staff finds the lot area and width aie inherent to the property, and no additional land is available to increase the lot size. Staff also finds that structural coverage at the proposed 16.7% is not justified by a hardship. This is a small lot and over building on it will not be a long-term benefit to the neighborhood. 15% lot coverage will allow a total house and garage footprint of 1,854 s.f. Additionally, because of the substandard lots in the immediate neighborhood, granting any side setback variance will only increase the visual density in the neighborhood. Staff feels that the house can be redesigned to meet the setback requirements. It would not be unreasonable to grant some level of hardcover variance to support a house that meets the lot coverage standards, as it will be difficult to achieve 25% on this 50 ’ lakeshore lot without reducing the house/garage footprint down to 1,200 s.f. - assuming the minimum required driveway and sidewalk widths and a modest I0 ’xl5 ’ deck. Summary of Issues for Cousideration 1. Side yard setback; 2. Lot coverage determination; 3. Combination of reduction of lot coverage and hardcover to a reasonable level; and 4. Level of hardcover variance that is justifiable. 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Steff Roeommeudatioa Plaiming Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances. Planning staff also recommends denial of the side yard setback variance and denial of the structural coverage variance. Should the Planning Commission determine that there is hardship inherent to the size of the 75 ’-250 ’ area witfi respect to allowable hardcover, a reasonable hardcover variance should be discussed. I t * ■ r It f 1 a' . Mtai