My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-13-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
12-13-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 4:00:08 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 3:21:42 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
526
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FltH #04-3052 <br />September 13, 2004 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />hardcover down to a reasonable level <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />/« considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In <br />the sunounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recemmending approval for variances <br />from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause <br />undue hardship because of circumstances untipie to the Individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land which would justify the side <br />street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed. There are no current or <br />future plans to develop or vacate the Casco Point Road right-of-way along the property’s <br />northern boundary, and the future public use of the right-of-way is unknown. Stalf <br />believes that the allowed 55’ wide building envelope is very reasonable and a setback <br />variance to the side street is not justified. If the Planning Commission concludes that the <br />applicant should get credit toward the structural coverage for the dry land on the non <br />contiguous portion of the properly, there may be some appropriate level of hardcover <br />variance to support some reasonable level of development of the site. <br />Summary of lssuc.s for Consideration <br />1. Side street setback; <br />2. Lot coverage determination; <br />3. Combination of reduction of lot coverage and hardcover to a reasonable level; and <br />4. Level of hardcover variance that is justifiable. <br />5. Please review the comments from the adjacent properly owner reg^arding <br />drainage, parking and tree protection. <br />6. Please review the City Engineer ’s comments. <br />7. Arc tlierc any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakcshore setback variance. <br />Plapjiing staff also recommends denial of the side street setback variance, and denial of <br />the hardcover variance. I he application could be tabled for revisions if the applicant <br />requests tabling.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.