12-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15,1997 (#2 VARIANCE REPORT, Continued) Van Zomeren said it is her opinion that the 15% structural coverage limitation should be strictly adherec to with no variances allowed. There were 19 of 27 requests approved for structural coverage variances. Van Zomeren questioned what was the hardship. Gaffron referenced the opinion of Mayor Jabbour, who feels that if the standards are changed, people will still request variances for more than what is being allowed The reference point is what changes. Van Zomeren said she is not suggesting that hardcover requirements should change but sees a correlation where changes would benefit. She cited the oversized accessoiy chart includes what is reasonable but requires variance application for any amounts over that included in the chart. Gaffron said the Council had made the decision to review those applications that are not reflected by the chart Schroeder asked if the Council and Planning Commission decisions were reviewed separately in the analysis. Bressler said he analyzed the resolutions approved by the Council. Schroeder asked what the variable is between recommendations made by the Planning Commission and Council decisions. Gaffron said there is a 10-20% conflict in decisions and can go either direction. He noted that the Council finds it difficult to deny a request that was recommended for approval by the Commission. Gaffron said the Council prefers that the Planning Commission holds applications to code Van Zomeren said she questions the average lakeshore setback variance in examples where there is no impact Gaffron said that variance has evolved to that point. Schroeder referenced the 0-75' setbacK. There were 50 applications for hardcover variances in that zone and 34 were approved. This standard received the lowest approval percentage. McMillan questioned how many residents called about the possibility of a variance and did not apply due to information received. Gaffron indicated that changes to plans usually occur before applications are reviewed McMillan felt this was a likely reason why the approval rate is as high as the analysis showed Van Zomeren informed McMillan that those applications that are outside the requirements of the code are usually not seen. Gaffron said these plans are "tweaked" to that point Gaffron said the Council is concerned that there is consistency shown between the Planning Commission and Council. The Council wants the Planning Commission to be on the same wave length in thei.' considerations, which Gaffron said usually does occur Van Zomeren said that the purpose of zoning is to protect property rights and ensure compatibility between land jses She noted that a high rate of variances places a burden on neighbors, and not necessarily on the applicant, to prove that a request is not good for the neighborhood. Schroeder asked what the analysis revealed regarding where the Planning Commission fits in with the Planning Commissions of other communities. Van Zomeren said the number of variance requests are greater in Orono than in other communities. Gaffron noted that hardcover variances 8