Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #05-3104 <br />12 April 2005 <br />Page4o(5 <br />Hardcover A Stmctvral Coverage Variaace <br />A relatively large portion of the existing home sits ahead of the 75* lake A?tback causing 2,737 <br />s.f. of nonconfonning hardcover within the 0-75’ zone where structure and hardcover are not <br />allowed. This square footage of nonconforming hardcover, when applied to the 7S’-2S0’ zone, <br />brings the total site hardcover to 6,920 s.f. or 107% when calculating based on the area in the <br />7S'-2S0* zone. The applicants* proposal changes that number slightly to a total of 86% or <br />5,521 s.f.. <br />Currently the property is near conforming at 16% structural coverage. The applicants* <br />proposal elevates that level to 24.5% structural coverage. The current proposal adds over <br />1,000 s.f. to the current structural level. <br />Hardship Statenent <br />Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should <br />be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />/« CQMUiHHi tppUcationt for vmHance, the PlannlHg ConmhaloH shall consider the effect of the proposed <br />varhutee upon the health, sttfetp and welfare the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light <br />and air, dut^erefftre, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. <br />The Planning Commission shall consider reconunentttng approval for variances from the literal provisions of <br />the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of <br />elreumstancee unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only <br />when h Is demonstrated that such acHons will be In keying with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning <br />Code. <br />Staff finds that there is no hardship for further encroachment into the lake setback area. <br />Perhaps maintaining the current nonconforming setback with a 2"*^ story addition has hardship <br />support, however to expand further into the nonconforming lake setback area is unjustified. <br />These lakewaid additions also further increase the structural nonconformity of the lot. <br />A 1,863 s.f footprint home currently exists on the property and at 16% structural coverage, the <br />property is exce^ing the 15% allowance by 148 s.f. Staff feels that the proposal which is for <br />total structural footprint expansion of 1,193 s.f (24.5%) is in no way supported by a hardship. <br />The applicants are proposing to increase the l" floor ceiling height to 11*. They hope to <br />accomplish this by adding extensions on top of the existing walls. <br />The Planning Commission should discuss whether or not a 10* setback for the attached garage <br />is appropriate considering the depth of the lot and the tightness of the immediate neighborhood. <br />Additionally the Plaiming Commission should discuss the hardcover. <br />Sunnary of Issues for Consideration <br />■ Rebuild vs. Remodel? <br />■ Structural coverage from 16% to 24.5%. <br />■ Lakeward expansion further into the 75’ setback. <br />■ Rear yard setback 10*. <br />■ 2** story addition over existing home and new additions. <br />• Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />AdL