07-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h li M5-3IJ7 July IS.200S PageJofJ the east of the existing garage with a screen porch above. Both the existing and proposed garages are and will be accessed from the north. The applicant is also proposing a 6.5 ’ x 10.5 ’ screened entry way on the east side of the home, which also doesn ’t meet a 50 ’ front yard setback but is located on the opposite side of the house. The existing shed located in the northeastern comer will be removed. Hardship Statcaent Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /a etmaUvktg appikthm f0r variance, tke Planning Commission shaii consider ike effect of the prapaaed variance npon tke keahk, safety and welfare of die commnnliy, existing and anticipated tr^B^ eandmons, llgkt and air, danger tfflre, risk to the pnbik spfety, and die effect on vainesof properly In the snrranndlng area. Tke Hanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances fiam tke Hterai provisions of tke Zoning Code in Instances where their strict ettforeement wonU canse nndne hardship hecanse of circnmstances nnique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend i^roval only when It Is demonstrated that such aedaus wm he In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that the placement of the existing house fiom the front lot line and topography calling for a tuck*under style garage creates a hardship to warrant approval of a front yard setback. However, the applicant should be held to the 25 ’ setback previously approved as the proposed plans can Iw shifted 2’ to the east without changing the design. This would be a consistent recommendation based on similar applications where homes do not site exactly parallel to the lot line. Because the garage portion of the addition doesn ’t start until 4.5 ’ in, the need to lengthen the existing garage will not be impacted (see Exhibit H &I). The Planning Commission may however, discuss the fact that the previously approved variance at 25 ’ doesn ’t exist today as the setback was either measured vm>ng with the previous iqiplication or this part of the home was constructed whereby not meeting a 25 ’ setback. Technically, the applicant is getting only a tenth or so of a foot closer to Barrett Avenue. Issues for ConsMcratlon 1. Should the addition be moved 2’ to the east to maintain the previously approved 25 ’ setback even though the existing setback is 23’7 2. Are there any otl^er issues or concerns v^th this application? Staff Rccomncadatiou Staff recommends approval of a front yard setback variance that would maintain a 25 ’ setback fiom Barrett Avenue, which would require that applicant revised the proposed plans shifting the addition 2’ to the east