Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit D - Report from the 7-21-03 PC meeting and associated exhibits. <br />Au2u%t IS. 2003 <br />Pace 2 of3 <br />Background <br />This proposa’ was originally heard at the July 21“ Planning Commission meeting. At <br />that time the applicants were instructed to work with staff on a redesign and conduct a <br />wetland delineation if appropriate. The applicants have conducted a w etland delineation <br />but ha\c proposed the same monuments that were originally proposed <br />Wetland Setback Variance <br />Staff has met with the applicant and has concluded that whether identifying the proj.^rly <br />is accomplished with an address monument or standard 6" x 6" postTianging sign, the <br />effects that they would ha\ e on the wetlands arc minimal. Staff has rev iewed the wetland <br />delineation report and sight visihility triangle in relation to the location of the <br />monuments. Because the monuments will be outside both the wetland boundary and <br />sight visibility triangle, staff is allowing the applicants to proceed with the monument <br />design. A 12’ setback is proposed on the west side of the drive and a 5’ setKick is <br />proposed on the cast side of the drive. Two separate w etland selb.u k v ariances are <br />required; one for each monument. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has prov ided a brief h.ird>hip statement in Exhibit C. and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Anaivsis <br />/« conUdering appHcathn% for varlancf. the Planning Commhxhn thall comlder the effect of the <br />propped i-arlance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br />traffic conditions, light and air. danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on snlues of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship became of circumstances unhjue t»the Individual <br />property und. r consideration, and shall recommend approsal onlv when it Is demonstrated that such <br />aalont will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />The recom.mendations in regards to the hardship criteria are the same as those in the <br />prev ious planning report and should be referenced in Exhibit D. Staff would also add <br />that some type of identification is needed for safety purposes and that the wetland <br />locations and vegetation along the roadway and in the nghi-of-vvay are hardships inherent <br />to the property preventing the address markers which normally can be installed without <br />City approval <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? <br />2. W ill the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? <br />Should the applicants be required to submit plans to verify footing design? <br />3. Should the applicants be required to dedicate equal area of lost wetland buffer? It is <br />i