Laserfiche WebLink
■04-3037 <br />July 19.2004 <br />Page 4 ofS <br />(2.4C0 s f) received a variance to area, as prior to adoption of the current code any <br />building in excess of I,COO s f required a vanance Becau ; the 18.5* x 60 ’ (1,110 s f) <br />addiuon puts the entire building ever the 3,000 s f. requirement for an individual <br />building, a variance is required. Also, a variance to the total amount of a:cesscr>' <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 78-143 J (2) <br />DNR Setback Requirements <br />The Luce Line Trail piopcity is owned and operated by the DNR Tr.e DNR docs not <br />have any formal setback requiiements The DNR was notified of this request and no <br />comments liave been received to date. Should the DNR comment pnor to the meeting, <br />those comments svill be distributed. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit B. a narrative in <br />E.\iubit C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application <br />Hardship Analysis <br />/ii co/uidering appUcatiom for %tsnjnce. the Plaitning Comniniion ihatl comiJer the ejfect ojthe <br />propoied variance upon the health, ta/et)- and net/are of the coninninity. e.xisting and anticipated <br />traffte eonditiont, light and ..»>, danger of fire, ri§k to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Coinmission shall consider reeoniinending approval <br />for variances from the literal prouiions of the Zoning Code in instances uhere their strict <br />enforcement HOiild cause undue hardship hecause of circtimst,ini ;s unique to the individual <br />properly under ct'nsideraiion, and shall recoinineiid approval only h hen it is deinonstraied that such <br />actions will be in * eeping h Ith the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds no hardship exists to support approval of the Luce Line setback variance. The <br />location of the addition could be modified to meet the 50* setback, regardless of where <br />overhead doors exist as those can be relocated (see Exhibit G) <br />Staff finds that a hardship does exist to warrant approval of ^he accessory building area <br />variances. The total pioperty aica is in excess of 150 acres where the table m Section 78- <br />1434 (2) only accounts for properties up to 9 00 acres, wheie any property above 9.00 <br />acres IS subject to the same requirement. This is not to say that the table should be <br />extrapolated at the same area increments up to 150 acres and that is the area requirement <br />the club should be subject to, but rather the property could support accessory buildings in <br />excess of 6.000 square feet <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Docs the additional 4 ’ encroachment, for a total of 9’ encroachment on the 50 ’ setback <br />cause any negative impacts to the Luce Line Trail? <br />2. Is the hardship proposed convincing enough 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?