Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />m-3044 <br />August 16, 2004 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Hardcover Calculations <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />75 - 250 <br />250-500 <br />Total Area in <br />Zone <br />17,135 s.f. <br />60 s.f. <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />4,284 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />18 s.f. <br />(30%) <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />3,362 s.f. <br />(20%) <br />0 s.f.* <br />(0%) <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />3,622 s.f. <br />(21%) <br />0 s.f. <br />(0%) <br />After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />Rear Yard Setback Variance <br />The applicant has proposed to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang <br />located in the rear yard. Included for removal are the rock on plastic in the rear yard, <br />some wood rail-road tie retaining walls, pavers, planter areas and some concrete patio <br />areas on the north and south side of the home. The existing 1.7’ x 5.7’ encroachment is a <br />chimney shaft that will remain and is an allowed encroachment. <br />The applicant is proposing to add a garage and master suite addition to the cast side of the <br />home and a covered entry on the north side, all meeting the required setbacks. The <br />applicant is also proposing to construct a kitchen addition to the south side of the home in <br />line with the current house. This requires a rear yard .setback variance because the lot <br />line jogs to the ea.st 10 ’. 'I'he applicant is also proposing a deck to the ca.st of the kitchen <br />addition, which will meet all setback requirements. <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 />In conshlering applicationx for variance, the Planning Connnmion shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such <br />actions will he In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that there are hard.ships inherent to the land. For example, the jogged rear <br />property line and the sloping topography, all somewhat restricting the applicant from <br />meeting the required 30' rear yard setback. Further, the Zoning Ordinance defines the <br />front on corner lots as the shortest frontage. In this case that being Minnie Avenue even <br />through the applicant ’s front door faces Cherry Avenue and the property has a Cherry <br />Avenue address. If Cherry Avenue were considered the frc.it only a 10 ’ setback to the <br />west would be required, allowing the applicant to proceed ' ithout variances. Adding to <br />all mentioned above is the layout of the existing hom j .id what best fits within that <br />envelope.