09-27-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M04-30S1 September 20, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Hardship Aiialvsis In considering applications for variance^ the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literat 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 recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions wilt be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code, Staff finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre minimum requirement. The existing house has existed on the substandard area and width lot since 1957 and the lot was legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the house meets all other Zoning Ordinance requirements with the e.xception of the side yard setbacks. Tire lot is also sewered and not subject to primary and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variance as the lot is a legal lot of record and has stood on its own since 1957. Staff also finds a hardship to warrant approval of the 10 ’ side yard setback requests. The lot is not wide enough to meet the required setbacks. The Planning Commission and Council have consistently approved side yard setback requests of 10 ’ for existing 50 ’ lots on the lake regardless of the zoning district. The hardship criterion specifically calls for reasonable use. In staffs view, a 30 ’ wide building pad is reasonable. The Plarming Commission may want to discuss the reasonableness of anything significantly less than a 30 ’ width home. The applicants have been working with the City Engineer and Building Inspector in order to provide a grading plan which will not negatively affect adjacent properties. City Building Inspector, Bruce Vang has submitted a memorandum in Exhibit I indicating the plan submitted meets all requirements of the Building Department and City Engineer. Neighbor Comments The neighbors to the south hive submitted a letter objecting to the proposed variances. The letter outlines the pattern of development along West Lake and the acquisition and combination of 50 ’ wide lots in order to create larger, more conforming lots. The letter indicates that the applicants should wait to redevelop until the other two 50 ’ wide lots to the north can be acquired for one large lot, so that redevelopment more closely matches the 2-acre zoning standards. While staff agrees with the neighbors’ position in theory, the struggle of a property owner’s right to develop inevitably clashes with this theory. Since the City of Orono’s inception as a municipality, no active City initiative has existed with the intent of forcing property owners to wait to redevelop until they have acquired more land. In fact, the City has several small lot neighborhoods where the zoning doesn’t match and some owners have chosen to acquire more land where others have not. Staff recognizes that the West