Laserfiche WebLink
J : <br />M)5-3I26 <br />July 18,2005 <br />Page 3 of3 <br />Front Yard Setback Variance <br />The applicant is proposing a S* x 25 ’ addition to the front end of the existing attached <br />garage and a 10’ x 23 ’ addition attached to the north side of the attached garage. The <br />proposal also includes incorporating living space above the new 3-staIl attached garage. <br />The applicant received a variance in 1995 to the front yard setback requirement allowing <br />a 25 ’ setback. This request includes extending the existing attached garage 5’ forward <br />and constructing an additional stall to the north, requiring an additional 5’ encroachment <br />on the previously approved 25 ’ setback. A 35’ front yard setback is required within the <br />LR - IB zoning district. A variance is required in order to tallow the proposed 20 ’ front <br />setback. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />/ff eoMUertHg af^lkationa for variance, the Hanning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, sgfety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />tr^Hc condMons, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />properly In the surrounding area. The Hanning Commission shall consider recommendlne approval <br />for variances from die literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardsh^ because of circumstances unique to the individual <br />property . .nder consideration, and shall recommend approval oniy when It b demonstrated that such <br />actions wUI be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that no additioiud hardship inherent to the land has been demonstrated to allow <br />approval of an additional 5* encroachment on the 25 ’ setback approved in 1995. The <br />restrictions of the bluff and top of bluff setbacks factored into the approval at 25 ’, <br />allowing the applicant to construct a house with tv'o-stall attached garage. The Plaiuiing <br />Commission may want to discuss the reasonableness of granting variances for 3-stall <br />garages, although this may or may not help the applicant achieve a deeper garage. <br />As an alternative to gain living space above the existing attached garage and added <br />garage space to the north, staff would support variances maintaining a 25 ’ front setback <br />as well as a 10* side setback based on the finding and conditions of the 1995 variance <br />approval resolution. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Are there additional hardships beyond those that supported the 1995 approval to <br />allow a further encroachment of 5’? <br />2. Are additional variances to achieve a 3-stall garage reastmable? <br />3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the requested 20 ’ front yard setback. Staff would support variances to achieve <br />living space above the existing attached garage at a 25* setback when 35’ is normally <br />required, and also any garage addition (with living space above) to the north that <br />maintains a 25 ’ front yard setback and a 10’ side setback.