My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
03-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 1:46:52 PM
Creation date
2/5/2018 1:45:18 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.
/
370
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
} <br /> FILE#17-3912 <br /> 20 March 2017 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> The purpose for this application is to increase marketability by creating a second lakeshore lot. <br /> The Planning Commission and Council should determine whether or not it is appropriate to <br /> grant a variance based on this type of need. <br /> It is unknown whether or not two lakeshore lots can be created that meet the dimensional <br /> standards of the LR-1B requirements if the existing home is removed. <br /> The preferred option for staff would be to create two conforming lots.The existing home is <br /> likely a temporary situation,suggested by common redevelopment of homes of this age when <br /> the properties are sold.There is a sufficient buildable area on the property to accommodate a <br /> new home in a conforming location. <br /> After further analysis, it appears that neither lot in Option 1 meets the 140 foot requirement at <br /> the lake (OHWL) or at the 75-foot setback. If the applicant wishes to create a new lakeshore lot, <br /> Staff suggests the applicant show that both lots will meet the 140 foot requirement in both <br /> locations. <br /> Public Comments <br /> Comments from neighbors have been received;see Exhibit F. <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 variance(s), if granted, will not alter <br /> the 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 variance(s)? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Planning Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning staff recommends denial of lot width variances facilitating an adjustment of the <br /> property line. If the Planning Commission can support the variance from the lot width LR-1B <br /> standards, staff prefers Option 2 regarding the side setback variance for the existing home.The <br /> applicant is encouraged to explore alternatives which result in two lots with conforming area <br /> and width prior to placement on the City Council's agenda for consideration. <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> Exhibit A. Application <br /> Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form <br /> Exhibit C. Option 1 Survey—Side Setback Variance <br /> Exhibit D. Option 2 Survey—Lot Width Variance <br /> Exhibit E. Both Surveys—Highlighted to show lot widths <br /> Exhibit F. Aerial Photos <br /> Exhibit G. Hardcover Calculations <br /> Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments <br /> Exhibit I. Property Owners List <br /> Exhibit J. Plat Map <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.