Laserfiche WebLink
totsom <br />A»ril 19.2004 <br />ri««4efS <br />75-250 5,350 s.f.5,350 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />7,580 sf <br />(35%) <br />5,255 s.f. <br />(24.6%) <br />250-500 2,900 s.f.870 5 f. <br />(30%) <br />1,000 s.f.* <br />(33%) <br />865 s.f <br />(299%) <br />* After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />Noo-CoBfoniUBg Accctsory Straclnrt (Boatbonsc) <br />The applicants are proposing to keep the non-conforming 2-Ievel boathouse located 10 ’ <br />from the 929.4 elevation. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit any structures within <br />the 0-7S* zone. Further, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit any hardcover within the <br />0-7S* zone unless it is an access to the lake, a 32 s.f. landing, or a lock-box meeting <br />specific standards. The boathouse, acting as structure and hardcover within the 0-7S* <br />zone, does not meet the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordiiuuice. <br />The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing house, detached garage and small <br />shed located near the lake as well as removal of the patio and deck attached to the <br />boathouse. In the City ’s view the lot is being rebuilt and is therefore subject to all <br />standards within the Zoning Ordinance. This requires removal of the non-conforming <br />boathouse which contributes to excess strucnire and hardcover within the 0-7S* zone. <br />It should be rx)ted, that the applicants have contributed the hardcover associated with the <br />boathouse to the 75*-2S0* zone and still fall within the alloned 2S% hardcover for that <br />zone. Also, the 530 s.f. boathouse was also figured into the structural coverage <br />requirement putting the lot at 10% structural coverage when 1 S% is normally allowed. <br />HarddiJp StatcsBcat <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analytb <br />Ih comaidertmg tpfaemiMU/or ik* PUmmimg Cammk tim $kttt comUer tkt efftcl oftkt <br />ptopetei MVtefice mpom Ufa ktaltk, $^tty and wetfara oftka ca$mmtiHl9, cxtntef and aatklpaied <br />eondkhnt, i^kt and air, daagar o/flra, rbkiaiha pmbtk safety, and tke effect oa valma of <br />property la tka tttrroamdUig area. 7k# Ptamahtg Cooumbshm shall eoastder raeommemdiag approval <br />far variaaeas from the Uieral provbloas of the Zonhtg Code bi bistaaces wkare their strict <br />atfforcaataat woedd emasa aadaa hardship haeoasa elrema uta a eas aalgaa to the ladhidaal <br />property uader eoaridaradott, aad shad recoaame a d appromJ oaty whea h Is daatoastratad that sack <br />aetloas oUl be la kaaplag wM the spirit aad lateai of the Oroao Zoalag Code. <br />Staff fmds that no hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested \ariance. <br />Although in good shape, the boathouse is clearly non-conforming. Stafif and, under most <br />circumstances, the PU^ng Commission have consistently recommended removal of any <br />non-conformity at the time the lot is rebuilt In the City ’s view, this is the only <br />opportunity for non-conformities to be eliminated. This structure has no historical value <br />nor does it architecturally match the proposed house. <br />i ! I i j