Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />f/040037 <br />July 19.1004 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />(2,400 s.f.) received a variance to ai-ea, as prior to adoption of the current code any <br />building in excess of 1,000 s.f. required a variance. Because the 18.5’ x 60 ’ (1,110 s.f.) <br />addition puts the entire building over the 3,000 s.f. requirement for an individual <br />building, a variance is required. Also, a variance to the total amount of accessory <br />buildings is required as the existing buildings, with the proposed addition, exceed the <br />6,000 s.f. requirement of the chart in Section 78-1434 (2). <br />DNR Setback Requirements <br />The Luce Line Trail property is owned and operated by the DNR. The DNR docs not <br />have any formal setback requirements. The DNR was notified of this request and no <br />comments have been received to date. Should the DNR comment prior to the meeting, <br />those comments will be distributed. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit B, a narrative <br />Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimorty regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />//( considering applications for variance, the Planning Connnission shall consider the ejfect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the connnunhy, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger of ftre, 'isk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Connnission shall consider reconnneiidlng approval <br />for variances front the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict <br />enforcement would causa undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual <br />property under consideration, and shall rccanunend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code, <br />Staff finds no hardship exists to support approval of the Luce Line setback variance. The <br />location of the addition could be modified to meet the 50 ’ setback, regardless of where <br />overhead doors exist as those can be relocated (see Exhibit G). <br />Staff finds that a hardship does exist to wanant approval of the accessory building area <br />variances. The total property area is in excess of 150 acres where the table in Section 78- <br />1434 (2) only accounts for properties up to 9.00 acres, where any property above 9.00 <br />acres is subject to the same requirement. This is not to say that the table should be <br />extrapolated at the same area increments up to 150 acres and that is the area requirement <br />the club should be subject to, but rather the property could support accessory buildings in <br />excess of 6,000 square feet. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the additional 4 ’ encroacliment, for a total of 9’ encroachment on the 50 ’ setback <br />cause any negative impacts to the Luce Line Trail? <br />2. Is the hardship proposed convincing enough to grant the variances? <br />3. Would a separate building meeting the 50 ’ required setbacks have fewer negative <br />visual impacts? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?