Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#07-3254 <br /> � 9 January 2007 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> - exception of the proposed deck aiid the proposed porch, and while the proposed porch <br /> niay not affeci the lake views ifi extends into the 75' setback zone. The proposed deck ' <br /> also may noi affect lake views enjoyed by the adjacent liomes is located almost entirely , <br /> within the 75' zone. ' • <br /> The subject property's 75'-250' hardcover allowance is substanti�l at 6,890 s.f, however <br /> the existing and proposed levels far exceed the allowed amounfi ai 9,536 s.F. Even when <br /> accounting for the substaniial conerete removals within the 75' zone, the harcicover � <br /> within ihe 75' zone (both exisiing and proposed) fttrther push ihe 75'-250' zone into <br /> excess. Af1:er the 75' zone hardcover is appliecl to the 75' -250' zone the level is over <br /> 10,000 s.f at 37%. The in-ground pool, relatively Iarge foofprint of the lionle, detached <br /> garage and considerable driveway hardcover all contriUul:e to the 34% hardcover. While <br /> the home, detached garage and adclition do not eaceed the struchiral coverage limiis; ihe <br /> � excess hardcover on the property is difiicult to support. � � <br /> The position of the existing home on fihe lot and the orientation of the lakeshore on the <br /> property cause approximately 7' of the home to encroach into ihe 75' zone. The <br /> applicant is proposing a fiirther encroaclunent of a porch and deck. The deck would be , <br /> almost entirely within the 75' zone (setback of 59' from the OHWL) and the porch is <br /> proposed to encroach at the most 5' into the 75' zone. Both are contributing to the <br /> nonconformity of stri.icture and hardcover levels within 75' of the lake. , <br /> Hardship Statement � � ' <br /> Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and ' <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. ', <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> In carsirlering applicatio�ts for vnriance, t/re Plairning Conrmissiar s11a11 consi�ler tlle effect of fhe <br /> proposer/variairce crpo�r i/re/realt/r,safety alrr!welfare of t/re co�nnurnity, existing n�rd«nlicipater!trnffrc ' <br /> co�rditions, ligh!airtl nir, rlanger nf frre, risk to t/re public safety, a�ic!tlre effect on vnlr�es of property i�t <br /> Ihe srrrrouirdi�rg trren. Tl1e Pln�riri�rg Commission s/ra/1 carsirler recomme�rrling approval far vnria�rces , <br /> frosrr t/�e/itera!prot�isioits of t/te Zo�ring Code i�r i�rstruices w/rere t/reir strict enfnrce�nent waulrl cairse <br /> u�rdue/rar�lship becnnse of circru�rstnnces rrrrique to the inrlivitic�tr!property tnrder carsirleratiar, anrl � <br /> slra/1 recof�urrend «pprova/on/y �v/te�t il is denronslrrttetl //�a!strclt trcrin�rs wi/! be ir� keepi�tg ivit/r the <br /> spirit anr!i�rten!of tlre Oronn Zotrlug Cnde. <br /> Staff finds that with respect to the average lakeshore setback variance, the applicant's <br /> proposal is reasonable and there is hardship inhereni in the location of the existing home <br /> to support most of the �roposed additions, specircally the additions to the sireet side of <br /> , ihe home. The additions proposed ahead of the 75' setback are di�cult for staff fio <br /> supporl as the hardcover levels on the propez-ty seem excessive as well �►s the lack of <br /> hardship I'or a hardcover variance of this nature. The applicant has two garages, a large <br /> driveway and parking area adjacent to both, a very large pool,�and considerable paved ' . <br /> areas around the home. While ihe removal of the plasiic under the 1lndscape rock is an : <br /> improvenient, it is a required component of hardcover review and cannot be considerecl a ' <br /> net reduction. StaFf feels thal ihere are more�opportunities for hlydcover reductions both <br /> within the 0-75'and in the 75'-250' zones. <br /> ' ' 3 ' <br />