Laserfiche WebLink
• #05-3087 <br /> Februnry 22,2005 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> be constructed above the existing second story, having the potential to obstruct lake <br /> views that adjacent neighbors may have. <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, ancl should be asked for <br /> additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardshi Anal sis <br /> b:considering applications for vurirutce,dre Planning Cuntmission slra!!coi�sider t/re effec!of tlee <br /> proposerl variance upon t/te/realf/e,srrfety tritrl welfare of the comnurrrity,existing and n�tticiprrter/ <br /> traffrc coiiclitions,liglrt rin�l uir, danger of fire, risk to llre public safety, rurt!tlie eff'ecf oir values of <br /> property in tlie surrouiediirg�rrea. T/re P[�rnning Conr�nission sfial[catsirler recornmeir�ling npprova/ <br /> fo�varidirces from tlre/iteral provlsions of t/re Zoiring Code iit iiisf�rrrces where their strict <br /> enforcen:ent would cuuse u►rrlcre/�ardship becatise of circumstances rrnique to t/re individua! <br /> property u�tder consideratio�t, artcl s/ral[recomn:e�rd approvnl only wl�e�t it is demonstrated tfiat sucle <br /> actions will be�n keepin�with!he spirit and inte�rt of tl:e Ororro Zonin�Code. <br /> Staff finds that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated a hardship to justify <br /> approval of 29% when 27% was approved in 1989, with the stipulation that no additional <br /> hardcover be allowed. The proposed 2% increase consists mainly of a tlurd garage stall <br /> and the driveway to serve it. While staff recognizes the need for additional space for this <br /> particular fainily, that alone is not a hardship iiiherent to the land which is part of the <br /> hardship requirements. Witli this proposal,the applicants not only wish to construct a 3- <br /> stall garage, but no lakeside deck or patios are proposed (a small lakeside deck is <br /> proposed off the inaster bedroom suite above existing structure/hardcover), Staff finds <br /> tlus to be soinewhat problematic with the potential for firture requests for hardcover <br /> variances for either a lakeside patio or deck. Should a lakeside patio or deck be included <br /> the hardcover level would likely raise above 30% with the current proposal. <br /> Staff also finds that the applicant should be required to remove the 230 s.f. of landscape <br /> fabric within the 0-75' zone as no hardship has been demonstrated in order to keep it. <br /> Should the applicant agree to removing this material no hardcover variance for the 0-75' <br /> zone would be required. Staff finds that this area can easily be re-sodded so as not to act ' <br /> as hardcover. <br /> The findings of the 1989 hardcover approval iildicate support based on the mere fact that <br /> a net reduction of hardcover was proposed with reduction of the lakeside patio. This begs <br /> the question of whether the excess 0-75' shoreline area to the northwest, used in <br /> reviewing variances today, constitutes justification of the requested 2% hardcover <br /> increase. Although used in the past, this particular layout differs as it is not benefiting <br /> stormwater infiltration of the hardcover within the 75'-250' zone and therefore would not <br /> justify approval above the 1989 variance level. <br /> The applicant is also requesting approval of an average lakeshore setback variaiice. <br /> While the new construction of a 3-car garage meets the average lakeshore requirement, <br /> construction of the proposed half story above the existing footprint does not. Staff finds <br /> that blsed on the 1989 average lakeshore setback approval and the orientatioi� of the <br />