Laserfiche WebLink
h <br /> � FILE#12-3582 <br /> 17 Jan 2013 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Bluff Setback Variance <br /> In 2006, the bluff was shown 24 feet from the corner of the proposed home, outside the bluff <br /> impact zone (20') yet within the 30' bluff setback. Differences in topography shown on the <br /> current survey indicate that there may be a different bluff analysis today resulting in a revised <br /> top of bluff location possibly further up the slope than before. The applicant is working on <br /> preparing a revised survey to reflect the top of bluff. Staff hopes to have this information prior <br /> to the planning commission's meeting.The location of the proposed home is consistent with the <br /> previously approved plan and due to the other constraints of the property may still be the best <br /> location. If the top of bluff is shown to be closer to the home than on the previous survey, staff <br /> suggests the proposed deck be relocated or redesigned to have the least amount of <br /> encroachment into the bluff and bluff setback. <br /> Lot Area&Lot Width Variance <br /> In 2006 lot width and lot area variances were granted as part of the lot line rearrangement. The <br /> existing lot area and width continue to be supported by practical difficulty as there is no <br /> additional land available to make the property conforming. <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, <br /> and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> In considering applications for variance, the P/anning Commission shall consider the effect of <br /> the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated tra�c conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to ti►e public safety, and the <br /> effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The P/anning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the litera/ provisions of the Zoning Code in <br /> instances where their strict enforcement wou/d cause practical di�culties because of <br /> circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend <br /> approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> Staff finds the "hardship" or practical difficulty the 2006 approvals were based on still exist with <br /> the property. The revised bluff information may place the proposed deck (and perhaps the <br /> proposed home) very near the top of bluff. If so, it may be appropriate to reconfigure the deck <br /> layout or location to reduce the degree of encroachment into the bluff setback. <br /> Issues for Consideration <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 official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />