08-25-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N0^2922 Atfgust 18,2003 Page 2 of3 Exhibit D - Report from the 7-21-03 PC meeting and associated exhibits. Background This proposal was originally heard at the July 2I*‘ Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicants were instructed to work with staff on a redesign and conduct a wetland delineation if appropriate. The applicants have conducted a wetland delineation but have proposed the same monuments that were originally proposed. Wetland Setback Variance Staff has met with the applicant and has concluded that whether identifying the property is accomplished with an address monument or standard 6 ” x 6 ” post/hanging sign, the effects that they would have on the wetlands arc minimal. Staff has reviewed the wetland delineation report and sight visibility triangle in relation to the location of the monuments. Because the monuments will be outside both the wetland boundary and sight visibility triangle, staff is allowing the applicants to proceed with the monument design. A 12’ setback is proposed on the west side of the drive and a 5’ setback is proposed on the east side of the drive. Two separate wetland setback variances are required; one for each monument. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in E.xhibii C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis ht considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated truffle conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zot .ig Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual proper . under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The recommendations in regards to the hardship criteria arc the same as those in the previous planning report a.id should be referenced in Exhibit D. Staff would also add that some type of identification is needed for safct> purposes and that the wetland locations and vegetation along the roadway and in the right-of-way are hardships inherent to the property preventing the address markers which normally can be installed without City approval. Issues for Consideration 1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? Should the applicants be required to submit plans to verify footing design? 3. Should the applicants be required to dedicate equal area of lost wetland buffer? It is