09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iM^I !kp<c»b«r M. MM Hardskip Anahrtb /« i^fUcmHatu for omriomc*. Mr PtomiUiit Cammltsiom tktOt coruider the tffta </ Mr propoied vmrtaiKe mpom Mr ktMt. orfety omd we^ore of Mr nmHmmity, ediMif am# mndci^td traffic roMMMoffs, 4gikr «iMf Mr, aw«rr if/lrr, fto* to Ike public sa/rty, mmd the effect em oalmet of property In the utrroumMttt orim. The Cotmmittlom shall comider recamimtemdiitg approval for vmtiattcet from the metal promkomt afdte Xotdag Code ht instaoces where their strict etiforeement would caate undue hardship because </ circumstmnces unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping uith the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. StafT finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre minimum requirement. The existing house has existed on the substandard area and width lot since 1937 and the lot was legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the house meets all other Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yard setbacks. The lot is also sewered and not subject to primary and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variance as the lot is a legal lot of record and has stood on its own since 1937. Staff also finds a hardship to warrant approval of the 10 ’ side yard setback requests. 'I'hc lot is not wide enough to meet tire required setbacks, lire Planning Commission and Council Irave consistently approved side yard setback requests of 10* for existing 30* lots on the lake regardless of tlie zoning district. The hardship criterion specifically calls for reasonable use. In staffs view, a 30' wide building pad is reasonable. 'I'hc Planning Commission may want to discuss the reasonableness of anything significantly less than a 30 ’ width home. llic applicants liave been working with the City Engineer and Building Inspccior in order to provide a grading plan which will not negatively affect adjacent properties. City Building Inspector, Bruce Vang has submHted a memorandum in Exhibit 1 indicating the plan submitted meets all requirements of u ? Building Department and City Engineer. ^cighbor Comncnls The neighbors to the souUi have submitted a letter objecting to the proposed variances. The letter outlines the pattern of development along West Lake and the acquisition and combination of 30* wide lots in order to create larger, more conforming lots. Tlie letter indicates that the applicants should wait to redevelop until the other two 30 ’ wride lots to the north can be acquired for one large lot. so that redevelopment more closely matches the 2-acre zoning standards. While staff agrees with the neighbors’ position in theory, the struggle of a property owner’s right to develop inevitably clashes with this theory. Since the City of Orono’s inception as a municipality, no active City initiative has existed with the intent of forcing property owners to wait to redevelop until they have acquired more land. In fact, the City has several small lot iKighborhoods where the zoning doesn't match and some owners have chosen to acquire more land where others have not Staff recognizes that the West M