My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
04-10-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:13:33 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:02:56 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
384
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 # 17-3912 <br />20 March 2017 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />Practical Difficulties Analysis <br />The purpose for this application is to increase marketability by creating a second lakeshore lot. <br />The Planning Commission and Council should determine whether or not it is appropriate to <br />grant a variance based on this type of need. <br />It is unknown whether or not two lakeshore lots can be created that meet the dimensional <br />standards of the 1-11-113 requirements if the existing home is removed. <br />The preferred option for staff would be to create two conforming lots. The existing home is <br />likely a temporary situation, suggested by common redevelopment of homes of this age when <br />the properties are sold. There is a sufficient buildable area on the property to accommodate a <br />new home in a conforming location. <br />After further analysis, it appears that neither lot in Option 1 meets the 140 foot requirement at <br />the lake (OHWL) or at the 75 -foot setback. If the applicant wishes to create a new lakeshore lot, <br />Staff suggests the applicant show that both lots will meet the 140 foot requirement in both <br />locations. <br />Public Comments <br />Comments from neighbors have been received; see Exhibit F. <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 <br />the 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 />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Planning staff recommends denial of lot width variances facilitating an adjustment of the <br />property line. If the Planning Commission can support the variance from the lot width LR -113 <br />standards, staff prefers Option 1 regarding the side setback variance for the existing home. The <br />applicant is encouraged to explore alternatives which result in two lots with conforming area <br />and width prior to placement on the City Council's agenda for consideration. <br />List of Exhibits <br />ExhibitA. Application <br />Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form <br />Exhibit C Option 1 Survey — Side Setback Variance <br />Exhibit D. Option 2 Survey — Lot Width Variance <br />Exhibit E. Both Surveys — Highlighted to show lot widths <br />Exhibit F. Aerial Photos <br />Exhibit G. Hardcover Calculations <br />Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments <br />Exhibit /. Property Owners List <br />Exhibit J. Plat Map <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.