My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-19-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
01-19-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:13 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 3:16:36 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
372
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FILE#16ti3799 , <br /> January 13,2016 <br /> Page 6 of 8 <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Planning <br /> Cammission must make a recommendation as to whether the proposed <br /> covered deck addition will alter the character of the neighborhood. <br /> City Code 78-123 provides additionai parameters within which a variance may be granted as <br /> fo Ilows: <br /> 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property. 7he condition of having an accessory <br /> structure on propertles in the Crystal Bay neighborhood is common; the iocation af <br /> the existing accessory bullding and the shape of this Iot is very uncommon, but <br /> alternate locations for accessory buildings on the properly exist where greater <br /> ccmpiiance wlth code requirements is possible. <br /> 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the fand is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other <br /> property in the neighbarhood; the existing location of the buifding make it impossibie <br /> to expand while meeting the conditions imposed by the City ordinance. <br /> 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservatian and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff,the property rights of <br /> the owne�wilf not be dtminished if the variances are denied. <br /> 7. The g�anting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter, Granting of <br /> ti�e variances would not impair heaFth, safety, comfort or morals but might not be in <br /> keeping with the intent of the zoning code. <br /> 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but <br /> is necessary to alleviate demonstrable di�culty. In the opinion of staff,granting of the <br /> variances may solve a practical difficulty, but might be construed as a convenfence to <br /> the applicant. <br /> The Commission may recommend and the Cauncil may impose conditions in granting of <br /> variances. Any conditfons imposed must be directiy related to and must bear a rough <br /> proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed <br /> beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> Front/Street Setback Yariances <br /> The location of the existing accessory building is nearer the street than most other principal <br /> bu�ldings in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, its distance from and somewhat lack of a <br /> visual connection to the principal residence it serves, makes it unique. Perhaps the strongest <br /> aspect of it, is its decades-ofd character as a fixture in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The <br /> structure is apparently not the primary garage serving the residence, and expanding it to the side <br /> and rear with a covered porch should have no perceived impact on traffc or safety in the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Slde Setback Variance <br /> Extending the covered deck northward at the same 4-foot setback as the existing structure is not <br /> in keeping with the Zoning Code requirements for expansion of an existing non-conforming <br /> structure. The 4-foot setback coupled with the proposed 1.5-foot overhangs results in an <br /> additional 15 feet of eave dripline less than 3 feet fram the neighboring property to the west. <br /> From a practical standpoint, it may be appropriate to require gutters so that runofF can be <br /> directed away from the adjoining property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.