Laserfiche WebLink
x � <br /> FILE#06-3184 <br /> 10 May 11,2006 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Hardcover Variance ' <br /> The applicant is proposing 36.2% hardcover witlun the 75' —250' zone and is removing <br /> the eaisting residence anci hardcover. The applicant is proposiiig to construct a liome � <br /> � with a 1,847 s.f. footprint wifli a 148 s.f. deck. � <br /> The applicant's has proposed, a hoine with a 1,847 s.f. footprint inchiding a garage, 1,522 <br /> s.f. of driveway (within tlus zone), 148 s.f. deck, 145 s.f. of sidewallc, and 168 s.f. of <br /> retainui� wall and window well inake up the 36.2% proposed hardcover. The driveway <br /> and sidewallcs as proposed are nliniinal. <br /> This application was coinpared to other lakeshore `total rebuilds' occurring during the six <br /> year period 1999-20Q4, ttsiiig the cliarls (Exhibit G) created by staff to illustrate the <br /> recent relationship between lot area, square footage of the 75-250' zone, approved house <br /> footprint, and 75-250' hardcover percentage. The iiitent of these chai�s is to assist in <br /> analyzing what level of hardcover would be consistent with past rebuilds on lots with <br /> siinilas characteristics. <br /> The chai�ts are sorted by tlzree categories: 1) Total Lot Area; 2) 75-250' Zoiie Area; and <br /> 3)Approved Struct�ire Footprint. Applicant's proposal is based on: <br /> Total Lot Area= 19,572 s.f. <br /> 75-250' Zone Area= 10,582 s.f. <br /> Stnict�ire Footprint Area= 1,995 s.f. <br /> In comparison, it appears that: <br /> • Four lots with a similar total lot area (19,065 s.f. — 20,624 s.f.) have been <br /> approved with 75-250' hardcover ranging from 25%to 38.6%... <br /> • Four lots with a similar 75-250' zone area (10,000 s.f. — 11,360 s.f.) have been <br /> approved for 75-250' hardcover raizging from 25%to 28.6%... <br /> � Four lots with a similar struct�iral footprint (1,811 s.f. — 1,985 s.f.) have been <br /> approved for 75-250' hardcover ranging from 25%to 18.8%... <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has conipleted the Hardship Documentation Forni attached as Exhibit B, and <br /> should be asked for additional testiniony regard'ulg tlie application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> Lr carsideriitg applic�rtio�rs for vtrrimrce, �/re Plturning Conr�uissio�r slra/1 coirsirler tlre effect of tlre <br /> proposer!varitutce aporr 1/1e/realtlr,safety nnrl welfnre of i/re conrnur�riry,erisling a�t�!a�tticipaied traffic <br /> conditioirs, ligl�t«�rr[air, daager of fire, risk to tlle public safety, uird t/re effeci on vnlcres of propertp i�r <br /> t/re srrrroundilrg rrrea. T/re P[a�uii�rg Commissio�r s/ru/!coirsider reco�rrnrenrli�rg«pprova!for var}mrces <br /> fro»t tlre liler�l nrovisions of rhe Zoniug Corle rn i�rsi�urces w/rere their slricl enforcemeirt �vorrld cause <br /> urrdtre lrards/iip becarrse of circui�istn�rces «�riqrre fo t/re indit�irh�a!property under co�rsiderntion, mrd <br /> s/rti//. recot�rnle�ul npproual o�rly wl�eir it is �lenronslraled 1/rat srrc/r actions ►vil!be i�a keeping wirli t/te . <br /> spirit nrrr!i�rtent of!l1e Orono Zo�ri�rg Code. <br /> Staff finds the lot area and wiclth 1re inherent to the pro�erty, and no addiiioilal laiid is <br /> available to incre�se ihe lot size. It would not be uiueasoiilble to �rant some level of • <br /> h�rdcover variaiice to suppoi-t tlie proposed house wluch meets the lot coverage <br /> 3 <br />