Laserfiche WebLink
«03-2915 <br />July 21.2003 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage <br />18,843 s.f (0.432 acre)Normally allowed: 2826 s.f. (15%) <br />Allowed pc.' prior approval: 3466 s.f. (1 8.3?'o) <br />Proposed: 3466 s.f. (18.3%) <br />Hardcover Calculations; <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 4687 s.f.Os.f 229.5 s.f.*229.5 s.f. <br />(0%)(4.7 %)(4.7 %) <br />75-250 11.876 s.f.7969 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />5621 s.f.* <br />(47.3%) <br />5621 s.f. <br />( 47.3%) <br />♦After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />Side Yard Setback Variance <br />The existing NW side yard setback is less than the required 10 ’. The existing roof eave <br />overh; ngs into the setback area a total of 3.5 ’, 1.5 ’ of the eave is considered a non- <br />nicioachment [Sect 10.03, Subd(15)] which leavesatotal ofa 2’ side-yard encroachment. <br />Avcr.age Lnkeshore Setback Variance <br />The applicant has requested a variance of the average lakeshore setback variance in the <br />amount of 3 ’. The existing building is currently encroaching into the average lakeshore <br />s-'tback, however, the applicant wishes to add a second-story, which would increase the bulk <br />of the encroachment. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />III comidefing appUcathms for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safely and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue <br />hardsliip” pertinent to this application: <br />1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable uzc if used under corditiorj <br />allowed by the official controls." <br />It is i/.c opinion of Staff that the property can be put to reasonable' ttse under the <br />current conditions. <br />X <br />1