Laserfiche WebLink
Hardcover Calculations: <br />FILE «C4-2999 <br />13 April 2004 <br />Pagri 3 0^ 4 <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />Total Area in <br />Zone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />0- 75 4.5G0 s.f.0 s.f <br />(0%) <br />219 s.f.* <br />(4.86 %) <br />Allowed: stairs to <br />lakcshore <br />219 s.f. <br />(4.86 %) <br />Allowed: stairs to <br />takeshore <br />75 - 250 11,340 S.f.2,835 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />3,403.5 s.f <br />(30 %) <br />3,403.5 s.f. <br />(30 %) <br />* After e.\clusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />Hardcover Variance <br />The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance for the 75’-250 ’ setback zone. The <br />hardcover variance is required in order to replace their existing lakeside deck as it is <br />rotted and they feel it is unsafe. VVIiiie replacing this deck the applicants arc also <br />requesting a permit to constnict a screened porch under the structure of the deck. The <br />reconstruction of the deck with the addition of the proposed screen porch would not <br />increase hardcover or structural coverage as it currently exists. <br />Average Lakeshore Setback <br />The proposed deck will meet the average lakeshore setback from the neighboring deck <br />setbacks. With the applicants’ proposal to screen in the area beneath the porcli the <br />average setback would be measured from the neighboring houses rather than the decks, <br />causing the deck/porch to be ahead of the average setback slightly. However, due to the <br />topography of the lots and the setback from Lake Minnetonka, this slight encroachment <br />into the average setback is virtually undetectable from the neighboring properties. Please <br />refer to photos 2 through 5 for illustrations of the neighboring lake views. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />III coiisidcriitg applicalioits for variance, the Planniiif; Commisuon shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the cominnnity, existing and anticipated trajftc <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in <br />the surrounding area. The Planning Coiuinission shall consider recoinincnding approval for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that because the deck is exists currently and the applicants have merely asked <br />to replace it in kind, there is a hardship to justify the variance. The applicants are <br />requesting a variance in order to maintain the square footage that currently exists and to <br />be able to repair their rotted deck.