Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#13-3593 8 13-3594 ' <br /> 12 February 2013 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <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 hea/th, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated tra�c conditions, light and air, danger of�re, risk to the public safety, and the <br /> effect on va/ues of property in the surrounding area. The P/anning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in <br /> instances where ti►eir strict enforcement wou/d cause practica/ di�culties because of <br /> circumstances unique to ti►e individua/property under consideration, and shall recommend <br /> approval on/y wi►en 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 pool cabana to be in compliance with all zoning requirements and recommends <br /> approval of the CUP for the shower. <br /> Staff finds that there is a practical difficulty inherent to the property due to the relative location <br /> of the neighboring residences and the extensive setback from the lake. These factors s support <br /> the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant's request is in harmony <br /> with the character of the neighborhood and does not result in excessive massing on the <br /> property. Further, it does not appear the proposed pool will negatively impact views of the lake <br /> enjoyed by the adjacent properties. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find practical difficulty to permit a second in-ground <br /> pool ahead of the average lakeshore setback line? <br /> 2. 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 /> 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variance? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the plumbing in the accessory building. If <br /> 'the Planning Commission finds practical difficulty supporting the variance to allow the proposed <br /> in-ground pool to be located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line an approval <br /> recommendation should also be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. <br />