Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3146 <br /> October 17,2005 <br /> Page 4 of 5 " <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has providecl a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for <br /> additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardshi Anal sis <br /> In co�lsideri�rg applicatiojas for i�aria�lce,tJre Pl�eniting Con:missio��s/ra1!consider tbe effect of t/le <br /> proposerl variuirce upon i/re/re�rll/r,safety and we/frrre of t/te comiiuurity,existing an�l anticipniet! <br /> traffrc co�iditions,lig/tt nnd air,danger of fire, risk fo tJre puhlic saf'ety, anr/tlre effect o�t valtres of <br /> property in the surrou►rding areu. T/re Pla�rieing Co�un�ission shal!co�rsider recomme�rding«pproval <br /> for v�rriances jro»�tlre litera!provisioirs af tlre Zoning Code in ifrstances wlrere tkeir strict <br /> e�rfnrcement would crruse iurdue lurrdslrip because of circ�imstances iuiique to t{re intlivi�lrral <br /> properry�utder co�rsiderr�tiojt, rurd s/r�rl/recom�iie�rd«pprov�rl o�tly w/�en it is derno�rstrated that suc11 <br /> uctions wil!be in keepin�with tf�e spirit aiid iirte�rt qf tlte Orono Zonin�Code. <br /> Staff finds the proposal as submitted does not meet the spirit and intent of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance nor does it fit withii� recent approvals for detached garages on similarly <br /> substandard lots. While the lot is substandard in area and width and has considerable <br /> depth reqttiring extensive driveway hardcover, which may all be hardships in the desire to <br /> obtain a garage, the 32' x 25', two story garage setback 5' from the side lot line is not <br /> reasonable based on recent similarly approved variances. Staff would also argue that the <br /> variances approved in 2002 are out of character with the current goals of the Planning <br /> Commission and City Council, and the current proposal is for an even larger garage. <br /> Staff would recommend that the PlamZing Coinmission consider the following in asking <br /> the applicant to revise his proposal: <br /> � As the propei-ty is extensively over on hardcover, it may be more reasonable to allow <br /> only a standard 24' x 24' one story garage. <br /> • A second story garage would only be acceptable if all setback requirements could be <br /> met. <br /> • Would less hardcover be required if the garage were designed to front-load and be <br /> located right up to the 30' rear yard setback (rather than the 35' currently proposed)? <br /> • Would less hardcover be required if the garage rernained side-loading but was pushed <br /> to the 15' setback from the street and 10' setback from the side lot line (assuming the <br /> revised garage were less than 750 s.f.)? <br /> Lastly, this neighbor•hood has experienced drainage probleins recently, which have <br /> impacted the deterioration of the applicant's eaisting garage, whereby a grading plan <br /> should be reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff would reconunend that the applicant's <br /> revised plan include eaisting and proposed grading that the City Engineer can review and <br /> comment on prior to approval of any variances. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Is an 800 s.f. two-story garage reasonable for this propei-ty? <br /> 2. Are there alternative designs that would reduce hardcover fi�rther? <br /> 3. Is the added height of the storage area appropriate at a substandard setback? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />