Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />The stated liardship and plan is designed around three mature maple trees on the lot - two near the <br />road, and one centered in the 75-250' zone. The new residence will be located completely out of <br />the 0-75’ zone, but remains in line with adjacent homes. The excess hardcover is a function of a <br />number of factors: <br />1) Keeping the residence in line with adjacent homes to not result in a ‘domino ’ elTect <br />which would negatively affect the neighbors ’ average setbacks; <br />2) Keeping the residence in line w ith adjacent homes so that applicants views of the <br />lake are not impacted by the neighboring homes; <br />3) Designing and locating the residence so that it maintains a 10-12’ setback from the <br />trunk of the center-lot maple in an attempt to save it; <br />4) House/decks footprint and necessar>’ sidewalks; and <br />5) Driveway to ser\'e 3-stall garage. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation: <br />The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to approve the application as presented <br />with condition the 252 s.f. deck located by the lakeshorc in the 0-75’ zone be removed, which <br />applicants agreed to. <br />Planning Commission did not discuss w hether mature trees w ere a hardship necessitating additional <br />hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone. However, there was discussion by two members of the <br />commission regarding whether the trees would survive. The draft Planning Commission minutes <br />were not available at the time this report was written. <br />Hardcover Discussion: <br />Staff would ask Council to carefully consider w hether an 8.5% hardcover variance is appropriate for <br />a conforming lakeshorc lot. The lot meets the 100 ’ w idth. '/i acre standards of the LR-IC District, <br />so lot size should not be a factor. <br />During the past three years (1999-2000-2001) the City has issued building permits for 32 <br />tcardown/rebuilds on lakeshorc lots. Seven of the 32 met all code standards (often after significant <br />paring-down of plans), the remaining 25 w ere lire subject of a zoning application. Of these 25, qo <br />conforming lots were granted hardcover variances . Only substantially undersized lots were allowed <br />excess 75-250’ hardcover, and similar sized lots to the applicants (examples: 1130 Loma Linda, 0.44 <br />acres; 2683 Casco Point Road. 0.46 acres; 3195 Casco Circle, 0.56 acres) were held to the 25% limit. <br />In fact, only lots of 1/4 acre or smaller were granted hardcover in excess of 30%. <br />Wh'.le stall understands that each application must stand on its own merits, any lack of consistency <br />in granting variances will make it difficult for staff to advise future applicants what to expect. <br />Therefore, if Council is to grant this application, it must be prepared to make similar findings for <br />other applications regarding w hat constitutes a hardship. Does the justification of being in line w ith <br />neighboring homes to preserve views and avoid the domino effect act as a hardship, or is it a <br />convenience? Does having substantial driveway area to not only serve 3 stalls but to provide for a <br />backup area on a low-traffic local street, constitute a hardship or a convenience? Is the preservation <br />of mature trees that are not in an area protected by code, a hardship or a convenience? Is the <br />combination of a number of factors suitable to act as a hardship?