09-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ' -.1 M)S-3I43 August IS«200S Pag€4ofS 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 eenaUeriag apptlanloHS for vortonee, the Ptounlng Commission shall consider the effe^ of the proposed vortonce upon the health, safety and welfare of the commuahy, existing and anticipated tn^fk condMons, l^t and air, danger office, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property hi the surrounding area. The Hanning Conunisslon shall consider reconunendlng approval for varhuieet fiom the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall reeonunend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such acdons wUI be In keeping wM the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that the precedent has been set regarding approval of the requested area and width variances, llie City routinely reviews these types of requests, and grants them when no other land is available for acquisition and the applicant has demonstrated that all other requirements can be met. The lot was legally created prior to adoption of the current zoning standards, which require 1 acre and 140 ’ of width. Thus, the Planning Commission should recommend that the area and width variances be approved subject to ctmclusions on the amount of hardcover that should be permitted on the property and also subject to City Engineer approval of a grading plan. Staff finds that due to the luurrowness of the lot and over 1/3 of its area being located within 75’ of the lake and not buildable, hardships exists which may warrant some level of hardcover variance. Staff isn’t convinced, however, that the levels requested are within the levels typically ^qnoved for rebuilds on a lot of similar size and shape. The q)plicant has requested a house footprint of 1,455 s.f, a 3-stall garage of730 s.f., a 92 s.f. connection to tte main house firom the garage, minimal 72 s.f. deck, and minimal driveway and sidewalk to serve the house and garage. This maxes out the allowed structural coverage at 2,349 s.f. Based on a set of tables (Exhibit H) created fix>m data on rebuild applications within the last 5 years (1999-2004), the hardcover percentages should be approximately 25%-27% in the 75*-2S0’ zone and the footprint size (including garage) should be approximately 1,800 s.f. -1,900 s.f. Therefore, sUdf would recommend that the applicant be directed to reduce the foo4>rint size (including garage) and then hardcover levels can be reviewed at that time. This may consist of one or more of the following as deemed necessary: • eliminating the connection of the garage to the main house • reduction of the 3-car garage to a 2 car • pushing the home and/or garage closer to the street (if detached and side load as close at 15’ to street lot line), • reduction of a combination of house and garage footprint Staff would recommend that a hardcover variance be permitted for the 250’-500’ zone to a percentage needed to serve (mostly driveway) a house and garage footprint closer to 7 i