Laserfiche WebLink
•04-3H9 <br />JmuMry 20.2004 <br />pig«Sori <br />protect the shoreline, minimize runoff, and prcser>e lake vic^^^. As suicd in the <br />hardcover section of this report, the applicant is proposing to replace the railroad tie <br />retaining uall with a boulder out-crop area. This involves requires approval of a <br />conditional use permit. At this time the applicant has not presided enough information <br />regarding the railroad tie wall restoration for the City Engineer to conduct a complete <br />.Tsiew. Once the City has receisxd complete information for this piece of the proposal, a <br />fall analysis of any impacts to the lake will be review'ed <br />Section 78-1282 only allows for one set of stairs to provide access the lake. The cunent <br />plan proposes to keep both sets of stairs. The second set of stairs adds hardcover and <br />impacts views &om the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the impacts of <br />two accesses and encourage the applicant to eliminate one. <br />Hardship Statcmcat <br />Applicant has piovided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A & C, and should be asked <br />for additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship ApaKiis______________________________________________ <br />/n eomUlerInt applications for vatUmet, tite Fianning Commission shaii consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the keaitk, safety and weifart of the community, existing and anticipated <br />ttttffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the pubik safety, and the effect on vaiua of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Rlannlng Commission shall consider recommending approval <br />for vatianees from dte literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause un^e hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual <br />property under consideration, and shaU recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such <br />actions will be In hr r>lng with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff 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 7S-2S0' zone, however not the 35% that is currently proposed ;: •* <br />topography of the rear of the lot, and how the existing w*alls, which the applicant is <br />proposing to keep, tie into the existii^ foundation make it difficult to shift 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 that there are 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-cai garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has stated that <br />their 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.