My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-08-2019 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2019
>
04-08-2019 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2019 12:03:49 PM
Creation date
5/22/2019 11:59:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FILE # LA19-000011 <br />18 March 2019 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br />The variance process allows for reasonable development of properties that are unique and that <br />can demonstrate a practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Engineer Comments <br />The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at <br />the time of building permit. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Staff does not support the variance reducing the rear yard setback from 7.4 feet to 0.1 feet. In <br />staff’s view, the burden of proof to present practical difficulties to support that level of variance <br />has not been met. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission supports a variance, staff adds the following to the record: The <br />proposed setback of 1.2 inches does not account for the need of the homeowner access around <br />the home for maintenance without trespassing on the HCRRA property. <br /> <br />Please read the comments from the City Engineer, Building Official and Ms. Galatz from HCRRA <br />which are included. The HCRRA representative provided comments and has indicated that a <br />permit is required for the grading shown on the HCRRA property. She has also indicated that <br />removal/relocation of the applicant’s existing shed which encroaches on the HCRRA property may <br />alleviate their concerns about further encroachments should the variance be approved. <br />Relocation of the shed to a location within the property boundaries would likely require setback <br />and hardcover variances. The planning commission should discuss this shed with the applicant. <br /> <br />According to Building Official Roger Peitso’s comments, adjustments to the building plans may be <br />necessary if the planning commission finds justification for variance approval. Specifically, <br />adjustments to the roof, eaves, gutters, and foundation. <br /> <br />Staff recommends the building plans be adjusted to meet the requirements outlined by the <br />Building Official. Staff finds the hardcover variance request to be reasonable considering the <br />practical difficulties affecting the property. The planning commission should review the plans <br />and evaluate the practical difficulty criteria regarding the rear yard setback and make a <br />recommendation regarding the setback variance. <br /> <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative <br />Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.