01-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 M4-2970 January 20,2003 Pages of 7 Staff finds that there are convincing hardships to recommend approval of the side setback variance. The applicant isn’t proposing to increase the footprint but merely to add height, not additional living space, to this comer of the home. The visual effects of the new, raised roof only add approximately 5’ to the overall height of the home. It is also worth noting that the setback at the southw estern comer of the home is 12 feet further lessening any impacts to the neighbor to the south. Staff finds that a hardship exists because additional living space isn’t proposed, the height increases are minimal when compared to the entire home, and the existing setback is non-conforming. Staff would also conclude that a hardship exists to allow approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The hardship arose when the lot to the south, 2050 Shoreline Drive, was built in 1989 in a location that now places the applicant ’s property in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The characteristics of the two lots are quite different in that the applicant ’s property is accessed from Bay Ridge Road and the rear of the home faces the lake and Shoreline Drive. Also, the applicant s property is exuemely screened from Shoreline Drive, whereas the property to the south, most affected by the average lakeshore setback, is accessed off Shoreline Drive and the front of the home faces the lake. The applicant ’s proposal to change the roof line doesn’t affect any views this property has to the lake due to the following; the view lines point extremely northeast, the property to the south has approximately 250’ of view able lakeshore, and a significant tree line sits along the applicant ’s southern and lake propert> boundary further hindering any views the southern lot may have. Because of these factors staff finds that convincing hardships exist which warrant variance approval. Finally, staff w ould also recommend approval of the proposed hardcover variance. The applicant is proposing a car port on the western side of the home, which has potential to affect the existing hardcover. How ever, with the addition of the car port the applicant has proposed to remove approximately 379 s.f. of driveway and sidewalk. The car port, 22 ’ x 24 ’ is size, will be placed over e.xisling driveway causbg an increase of 208 s.f. of hardcover. With 379 s.f. proposed for removal and 208 s.f. proposed new hardcover, a net decrease of 180 square feet of hardcover is the result (see Exhibit D). Because post construction hardcover will be lower than existing conditions, staff would recommend approval as the applicant has made a good faith effort towards reducing hardcover on the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship ” pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Became the property is non-conforming with respect to hardcover, side setbacks, and average lakeshore setback, any improvement to the property beyond interior remodeling w ould require a variance. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumsunces unique to his property not