2018.11.20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance and Nonconforming Use Request – Big Louie’s Restaurant Planning Commission Report; 11-20-18 Page 4 (cont.)  Chapter 8, Article 4, Nonconforming Use. Identifies the process by which a nonconforming use is to be examined if/when changes are proposed on a property. Existing & Proposed Setbacks: B-3 Required Existing Proposed Front (CR D) 30 ≈ 31 ≈ 31 Side (Hwy 88) 30 13 13 Side (Long Lk Rd) 30 ≈ 15 ≈ 15 Rear (north) 30 ≈ 210 ≈ 210  The existing setbacks will not change as a result of the proposed improvements. Coverage Analysis:  Building coverage is not applicable in the B-3 district.  Impervious surface coverage is not applicable in the B-3 district. FAR Analysis:  The building is (and will be) conforming to the allowed 1.0 floor area ratio within the B-3 zoning district. Flood Plain Analysis:  The subject parcel is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Issues:  There are no variances to Shoreland standards being requested. Building Height:  The maximum height of structures in the B-3 district is two stories or 36 feet, whichever is less.  The building and proposed addition are conforming to the height maximum. Nonconforming Use Variance Review: APPLICANT Project Narrative: I am requesting to remove the solarium and turn it into an enclosed interior, using the same measurements and existing foundation. No change in the square feet. Criteria Analysis: The applicant is requesting a 17’ variance from the required 30’ setback from the right-of-way for Highway 88. By state statute, there are three definitive criteria that all variances must address: consistency with the ordinance, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the establishment of “practical difficulties.”