PC information 7-18-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3137 July 18, 2005 Page 3 of 3 the east of the existing garage with a screen porch above. Both the existing and proposed garages are and will be accessed from the north. The applicant is also proposing a 6.5' x 10.5' screened entry way on the east side of the home, which also doesn't meet a 50' front yard setback but is located on the opposite side of the house. The existing shed located in the northeastern corner will be removed. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. In 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 traffic conditions, light 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 Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property 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. Staff finds that the placement of the existing house from the front lot line and topography calling for a tuck -under style garage creates a hardship to warrant approval of a front yard setback. However, the applicant should be held to the 25' setback previously approved as the proposed plans can be shifted 2' to the east without changing the design. This would be a consistent recommendation based on similar applications where homes do not site exactly parallel to the lot line. Because the garage portion of the addition doesn't start until 4.5' in, the need to lengthen the existing garage will not be impacted (see Exhibit H & I). The Planning Commission may however, discuss the fact that the previously approved variance at 25' doesn't exist today as the setback was either measured wrong with the previous application or this part of the home was constructed whereby not meeting a 25' setback. Technically, the applicant is getting only a tenth or so of a foot closer to Barrett Avenue. Issues for Consideration 1. Should the addition be moved 2' to the east to maintain the previously approved 25' setback even though the existing setback is 23'? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a front yard setback variance that would maintain a 25' setback from Barrett Avenue, which would require that applicant revised the proposed plans shifting the addition 2' to the east.