01-11-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#15-3796 7 Dec 2015 Page 2 of 4 Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required ` 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100' Actual 27,600 s.f. (0.63 acre) 92' @ 75'/106' @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 27,600 s.f. (0.63 acre) Allowed: 4,140 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,780 s.f. (13%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area Allowed Overlay in Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover District Tier Tier 1 27,600 s.f. 6,900 s.f. 6,030 s.f. i 280 s.f. 6,055 s.f. 280 s.f. w/in ! (25%) (21.8%) w/in 75' (22%) 75' Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279(6)) Because the property is a lakeshore lot and is situated between two lakeshore properties, the average lakeshore setback requirement applies. The Abbott property and the Swenson property are configured as opposing flag -shaped lots; the Swenson lot is wider at Casco Point Road and narrow at the lake, while the Abbott property is narrow (30' wide) at Casco Point Road and 106 feet wide at the lake. This configuration further adds to the deeper offset creating the average lakeshore setback. The +100 -foot offset of the neighboring homes results in most of the Abbott home being nonconforming with respect to the average lakeshore setback. Any expansion of the footprint or mass of the home will require an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant has provided construction plans as well as annotated site photos which reflect the proposed changes to the Abbott home. Both neighbors have provided supportive comments about the project and variance request (Exhibit G). The Swensons' view of the lake from their patio area is shown in the applicant's photo (labeled as "exhibit C" on Exhibit F2). The additions to the Abbott home do not appear to impact the Swensons' current view of the lake; nor do the additions appear to adversely impact lake views from the Brown residence on the other side. Governing Regulation: Var'!"—AMr a �ycdo: 78-1.23) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.