Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Jsa«ar) 20.2M4 <br />Past S an <br />protect the shoreline, minimize runofT. and preser\e lake views. As stated in the <br />hardcover section of this report, the applicant is proposing to replace the railroad tie <br />retaining w-all with a boulder outcrop area. This involves requires approval of a <br />conditional use permit. At this lime the applicant has not provided enough information <br />regarding the railroad tic wall restoration for the City Engineer to conduct a complete <br />review. Once the City has received complete information for this piece of the proposal, a <br />full analysis of any impacts to the lake w ill be reviewed. <br />Section 78-1282 only allows for one set of stairs to provide access the lake. 1 he current <br />plan proposes to keep both sets of stairs. The second set of stairs adds hardcover and <br />impacts view^ from the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the impacts of <br />two accesses and encourage the applicant to eliminate one. <br />Hardship Stalcmenl <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in E.xhibit A & C, and should be asked <br />for additional testimony regarding the applicaiton. <br />Hardship Aaatysb________________________________________________ <br />tn coiuUtrtiig tppllcathnt/or variance, the Plannlnt Commlulon ihatt comider the effect of the <br />proposed voriattce upon the health, safetK and welfare of the corrmunity, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approx^ <br />for variances from the literal provisions ofdte 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 approsol only when It is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Stair does not find any hardship to allow approval of a side setback variance in order to <br />allow a deck to be setback 8’ from the southern property line. The deck can be easily re­ <br />designed to meet the 10' setback. The applicant has expressed her willingness to do this <br />and the Planning Commission should therefore, not approve a side setback variance as no <br />valid hardship has been demonstrated <br />Staff finds that there may be some hardships warranting some amount of a hardcover <br />variance for the 75-250* zone, however not the 35% that is cuncnily proposed The <br />topography of the rear of the lot. and how the existing walls, which the applicant is <br />proposing to keep, tic into the existing foundation make i* difficult to shiO the house <br />further towards the road requiring a substantial amount of driveway. Staff has reviewed <br />the proposed driveway and finds that it, as proposed, is a minimum and isn’t an area for <br />potential reductions However, staff feels Uiat there ore potential areas for additional <br />hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f. of the <br />hardcover. The applicant is also proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f The decks and porch <br />together comprise 5.6% hardcover (861 s.f.). The applicant's plans also arc proposing <br />what appears to be a 4-car garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has staled that <br />f leir real need is only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attached to it. The <br />applicant has demonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, porch, and garage.