Laserfiche WebLink
•04J4I3? <br />Jul> 14. 2004 <br />P«t» * 0^ 5 <br />(2.400 s.f) received a variance to area, as prior to adoption of the current code any <br />building in excels of 1.000 s f required a variance Because the 18 5’ x 60' (1.110 s f) <br />addition puts the entire building over the 3.000 s.f requirement for an individual <br />building, a variance is required Also, a variance to the total amount of accessory <br />buildings is required as the existing buildings, with the proposed addition, exceed the <br />6.000 s.f. requirement of the chart in Section 78-1434 (2) <br />DNR Setback Requirements <br />The Luce Line Trail property is owned and operated by the DNR The DNR does not <br />have an\ formal setback requirements. The DNR was notified of this request and no <br />comments liavc been received to date. Should the DNR comment prior to the meeting, <br />those comments will be distributed. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentanon Form in Exhibit B. a narratixe in <br />Exhibit C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application <br />Hardship .\nalvsis <br />in comlUering applicattom Jot %-oritimt. tkt Planning Conuniwion %kall tomidcr the ej/at oj ihe <br />ptopoied variance upon the healih, %afet\ and u el/are of the community , exiuing and anticipated <br />traffic conditiont, light and air, danger of fire, rhk to the puhhe safety, and the effect on valuev of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending appros-al <br />I for suriances from the Isiera' pros islons of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict I <br />en forcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances uniifue to the indii idual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It it demonstrated that such <br />actions will be in keeping w ith the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Siaff finds no hardship exists to .support approval of the Luce Line setback variance The <br />location of the addition could be modil'ied to meet the 50’ setback, regardless of where <br />overhead doors exist as those can be teAHrated (see I xhibit G). <br />Staff finds that a hardship does exist to warrant approval of the accessory building area <br />variances. The total property area is in excess of 150 acres where the table in Section 78- <br />1434 ^2) only accounts for properties up to 9.C acres, where any property aboxe 9.00 <br />acres is subject to the same requirement. This is not to say th.u the table should be <br />extrajK>lated at the same aica increments up to 150 acres and that is the area requirement <br />the club should be subject to. but rather the property could support accosory buiMings in <br />excess of 6.000 square feet. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the additional 4 ’ encroachment, for a total of 9’ encroachment on the 50’ setback <br />cause any negatix e impacts to the Luce I ine Trail? <br />2. Is die hardship proposed convincing e.nough to grant the variances? <br />3. Would a separate building meeting the 50’ required setbacks have fewer negative <br />visual impacts? <br />4. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application?