08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r •03-29J6 AMtMtt It. 2003 ragt4*fS of the hardcover in the zone. There also are retaining ualls consisting of 53 s.f. or 1.2% hardcover in the zone. The applicants have not mentioned removing these and the slope leading to the lake is steep and highly vegetated. Thus, the walls arc probably being used to control drainage and protect the deck. There is also a 226 26 s.f. lakeside deck which results in 5.0% of the hardcover. The applicants did minor lepairs to the deck and would like to keep it. Lastly, the stairway is an allowed asc on the 0-75* /one and was not counted in the 14% hardcover figure and can remain. To be consistent in reviewing rebuilds, staff would recommend that the lakeside deck be removed. This would limit the hardcover in the 0-75’ /.one to retaining walls (53 s.f.) and the allowed stairsvay. If the deck were removed, hardcover in the 0-75’ zone would be 53 s.f. or 1.2% when 0% is normally required. In the 250-300'zone there is appro.ximately 2.194.5 s.f. or 34.8*/o hardcover. Thi.s includes the existing garage which has non-conforming setbacks, a concrete patio, and a conservative drive .vay. The applicants would like to tear dowTi the existing ga. • and rebuild a three car garage meeting setback requirements. The concrete patio wou.a be removed. The driveway would remain conservative and include a turn-around for safety purposes. The proposed hardcover, taking into account the new garage and revised driveway, would bring the hardcover to 2.332.5 s.f. or 37%. Staff has found Uiat the new garage and revised driveway are reasonable and that attempts have been made to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and sliould be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis iji eomtdgrtug tpp/lemthns/or variance, the Pianning Conuntuhn thall conxlder the ej/ect of the propoud variance upon the health, utjetp and welfare of the community, exbtlng and anticipated traffic condition t, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Pianning Commission shall consUer recommending opproxa! for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because efclrcumuances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approxal only when it h demonstrMed that such actions wUl be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. In the 0-75’ zone, hardcover will be going from I4®,o to 6%, a greater than 50®.i reduci on. However, .staff finds that no hardship exists to allow the lakeside deck to remain.^ The Plaiming Commission should decide whether the applicants have made a good faith effort in removing existing hardcover (fire-pit and concrete patio). The Planning Commission should also decide whether a hardship exists in the fact that the applicants bought the hous. with the deck and since have made minor repairs to improve it. In spite of this, to be consistent with prior rebuild applications, staff would recommend that it be removed due to a lack of a convincing hardship. Should the Planning Commission decide to require removal of the deck, the retaining walls, accounting for 53 s.f., could also be removed as they are controlling drainage to protect