Laserfiche WebLink
FILE�15�769 • . <br /> October 15,2015 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> 1. The praperty owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner very <br /> 5imilar to how it is currently and has hlstorically been used. <br /> 2. 7he plight of the property awner is due to having a small lot in a developed <br /> neighborhood of similarly small lots, and which is physically constrained as to expansion <br /> due to required setbacks, conditions not created by the property owner. <br /> 3. Replacement of the house as proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood. <br /> 4. Economic considerations are not a factor in this request. <br /> 5. Access to sunlight: NA. <br /> 6. Use variance?: NA <br /> 7. Use as 2-family dwelling7 NA <br /> 8. The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared <br /> to many others, while this lot is conforming in width, it has only a minimal buildable <br /> area as compared to other lots which are deeper and have more flexibility. <br /> 9. The property has an existing home similar in size and shape to the proposed <br /> replacement home; the property is uniquely situated as compared to others in the area, <br /> 10. The ability to replace the existing home is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br /> of any substan#ial property right. <br /> 11. Granting of the variancea would not lmpair health, safety, comfort or morals and <br /> appears to be generally in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. <br /> 12. The abil'rty to replace the home substantially in kind is not merely a convenience to the <br /> owner, but granting the variances is necessary to allow the home to be replaced. <br /> Issues for Consideratlon <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an officiai contral? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Is the 2-1/Z' enc�oachment of the front gable overhang acceptahle? <br /> 4. The submitted survey is lacking in detail that should be provided to confirm <br /> whether there is an average setback encroachment, and to provide detail regarding <br /> site grading and drainage. <br /> 5. Additional survey detail may also assist in determining whether the house can be moved <br /> westward to allow for an increased side setback. Staff is assuming that the foundation <br /> Is not going to be retained-applicant should confirm this. <br /> 6. The existing driveway scales to 25' in width; City standard maximum at curb line is 20' - <br /> although hardcover is not excessive,should the driveway be narrowed to meet code? <br /> 7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> List af Exhibits <br /> Exhiblt A. Application <br /> Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Exhibit C. Suroey <br /> Exhibit D. Proposed Building Plans and Elevatians <br /> Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations <br /> Exhibit F. Airphotos,Site Photos <br /> Exhibit G. Past Survey Compilation <br /> Exhibit H. Plat Map <br /> Exhibit I. Property Owners List <br /> Exhibit J. Neighbor Letter of Support <br />