09-22-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S' ma-1905 June 13,2003 Page 4 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” A’o/ Applicable 8. ‘The special conditions appl>ing to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The conditions apply to all other lakeshore properties in the I acre zone. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The conditions apply to all other lakeshore lots in the LR-IB District. 10. ‘‘The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Variances are not necessary fur this applicant to continue the current enjoyment of properly rights by applicant. 11. ‘‘The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The granting of a lot coverage variance will be contrary to the intent of the lot coverage ordinance by adding t excessive bulk and mass of structure in the neighborhood and add to visual density in the neighborhood. 12. ‘‘The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessarv to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” iVo luirdship has been demonstrated that supports the excessive lot coverage by structures. The average setback variances are. however, supported by the fact that no neighbor's views of the lake will be decreasea by the proposed deck and screen porch. Issues for Consideration 1. The current excessive hardcov er must be resolved prior to issuance of any new permits for this property. 2. After the property is brought in to conformity with the prior approval, it will have to be determined whether hardcover associated with the proposed additional deck at the NW comer of the house can be mitigated by further removal of driveway or other pavement. 3. Is there an> justification to allow an increase in lot coverage above the 15% limit applicable to all lots of this size? Note that the screen porch over existing deck will not increase structural coverage. The extension of roof over the front porch and the new deck at hte NW comer will add about 130 s.f of lot coverage or bring it up to 14.6%. The new garage will bring it well over the limit. 4. The average setback variance should not cause any problems because neither adjacent neighbor's views will be impacted. 5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?