Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#07-3262 <br /> • 15 February 2007 � � <br /> , Page 4 of 5 <br /> T�eight Variance . . � <br /> . Due to the design of the additions and exisiing hoine, the applicants are requestiilg a <br /> height variance. T]Zeir lowest level by ihe City's definition is considered a story, not a <br /> baseinent; therei'ore it appears that the plans are for a 3-sfiory home. The City's height . <br /> limit is 2'/z-siories. <br /> Hardship Statemcnt � <br /> � Applieant has completed the Hardship Doeumentation I'orin aifi�ehed as ExhiUit B, and <br /> should be �sked for additional testinlony regarding ihe application. <br /> . H�rdship Analysis � <br /> In co�rsirleri�rg applicnriars for vnri[mce, t/re Pla�uri�rg Con�mission shcr!/ couslder tlre effecl nf t/1e <br /> proposet!variance«pon the lrenitlr,safety«nd tvelfare of!lre cnnrnru��ity, �risting nur!anticipated traffic <br /> C0111/lllOiiS, /ig/rt and air, tla�tger of fire, risk to tlre prrblic snjety, «nd!/re effec!o�r vnlues of prnperty in <br /> . ' l/re surru[urdi�ig nrea. Tlre Planning Cont�nissio►r sha/J cnnsider reco��une�rdi�rg approvn/ for varia�lces <br /> front tl�e liternl provisions af tlre Zo�ring Corle in instances w/rere I/reir stricl enforceme�rt wnuld cause <br /> �urdi�e Itardsl�ip because of circ�rmsfa�rces uniq�ie to tlre individua!property «�rder co�rsideratia►, anrl <br /> s/�tr/! recomjnerrd nppro►�n/only wlre�r i! is denronstrrrted tllal si�c/1 trctions wi!/be i�r keeping witlr t/re <br /> spirit and brte�r!of t/re Orono Zoni�rg Cnde. . <br /> � The location of the existing home provides a number of challenges; perhaps a better <br /> . solution is to build a new home which would meefi a minimum of a 50' lake setback, <br /> which is the DNR minimum, and a 10' side yard setback from the western lot line. 'That <br /> having been said, Staff finds that with respeci to the hardcover it may be reasonable <br /> (considering the significant amount, of the property located in the 0-7�5' zone) to allow <br /> some level of variance. Planning Commission should evaluate and deternzine what levels <br /> are appropriate for each zone. With regard to the existing home, it is located 5' from the <br /> western property line and inay or may not be an issue with respect to storm water and <br /> surface water drainage; please refer to Toin Kellogg's comments (attached as Exhibit F). <br /> � The home on the neighboring lot is approximately 50' from the applicants' home. As a <br /> result the existing,neighboring home may not be adversely affected or oversliadowed by <br /> the 2"d story at 5' on the applicants' home. Drainage may still be an issue. The existing <br /> home's location poses quite a philosophical challenge regarding setbacks to the lake and <br /> improvements, however, staff feels ihat there should be some level of compromise to <br /> accomplish both the applicants' and City's goals. The lakeside deck is a significant <br /> encroachment into the lake setback; perhaps ihe applicants could propose some removals <br /> as ihe deck is struct�ire as well as hardcover in a nonconi'oin�ing locaiion. Additionally, � <br /> �s was discussed above staff feels that although the applicatioii does not trigger the <br /> application of the wetland buffer requirement the applicant should be required to <br /> establish some lake and weiland buffer to mitigate both the substandard lake setbacks and <br /> the hardcover levels. � <br /> Issues for Coasideration <br /> • While the new addition will meet the 10' side setblck requirement, the P1amliiig <br /> Commission should discuss the repercussions, if any, of allowing a coniinued side <br /> � setback encroaclunent for the second story. <br /> • Does the Planning Conlmission feel that some levels of vegetative burfer should be <br /> 4 <br />