08-22-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3140 August 15,2005 Page 4 of5 setback variance to permit a 1 S' setback. Average l4ikcshore Setback Variance The q)plicant is proposing to add height to the existing footprint. The property is located on Casco Cove where the shoreline curves around, rather than extending in a line. The average lakeshore setback is determined by the closest comers of the neighboring homes to the lake. Because of the cove situation, which is the reverse of a point situation, the applicants home lies forward of the average lakeshore setback, requiring a variance (see Exhibit J). Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In eenMerhtg a^Heathmsfor vartaace, Ike Hanning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance open the health, sttfety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic eondMans, l^ht and air, danger of fire, risk to the public sqfety, and the effect on values of propetfy In the surrounding area. The Hanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for wuiamcesffom the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual properly under consideratiou, and shall recommend approval only when h Is demonstrated that such aetlous wH be ht heephtg with the spirit and hrtemt of the Orono Zoning Code. Stafif finds that a hardship exists to warrant approval of the rear yard setback and average lakeshore setback variances to permit construction of a new roof adding a half story and vaulting part of the existing home. The City found in 1968 that the logical placement of the home would be at a 20' setback from undeveloped Maple Avenue due to the hardships of topography and configuration of the lot. Staff finds that the 1968 findings are still valid and the applicants should be able to build above the existing house but within all other restrictions imposed under the Zoning Ordinance. All building height, hardcover, structural coverage and other setback requirements will be met under the proposed plans. Staff does, however, view the covered entry as a new encroachment warranting additional hardship findings teyond the 1968 variance. The Planning Commission and City Council have approved and denied additional encroachments on non-conforming setbacks for covered entries in the past. Being that these features are becoming more prominent in renovation projects, the Planning Commission in detemiining whether this request should be granted, may want to establish specific findings of when variances will be allowed for covered entries and when they will not. Isims for ConsMcration 1. Does the Plaiming Commission agree with the 1968 variance approval? 2. Should a covered entry be permitted by variance? 3. Should covered entries meeting a certain set of criteria be permitted? 4. Is a covered entry a reasonable request? J