04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t'.’1 m-m6 1145 Slith Avenue North February 18,2005 Page 3 The applicants have provided adetailed hardship statement (Exhibit B). From staffs perspective, an argument could be made that a di fTerent home design could be created for this property that would require no setback variances, althougli grading within the blu ffimpact zone would be required to restore the grades where the existing house would be removed. The applicants have refined their design from an initial plan which would have had major grading encroachments in order to create a walkout situation, to a plan which has relatively minimal site grading, but does result in the need for a number of retaining walls, some of which are proposed and others which appear necessary but are not shown on the plans. Deck Encroachment . The proposed 6* deck encroachment results again from the design and size of the house in relation to the narrow buildable corridor between the two bluffs. It appears the main floor of the home (elev. 994.88) is being kept 6-7' above existing grade surrounding it (984-988'), in order to retain the ability to have a desirable south-facing lookout/walkout situation. The proposed grading on the south side, which does not encroach the 20* top of bluff grading setback, creates a swale under the deck to at low rnofi'deck runofifto discharge further west where the slopes arc less steep. The top ofbluffis very distinct on the south side of the proposed house. The 6* deck encroachment is over an area that is currently a relatively flat driveway apron, which has no existing vegetation. The 6' deck encroachment would have little impact on views from the lake nor on tlie stability of the bluff. Adding some trees and/or shrubs in the flat area between the bluffand the lake is an option if Planning Commission has any concerns about views from the lake (see Site Photos, Exhibit H). Garage Encroachment . The proposed encroachments arc in part a result ofthe applicants' intent to not have a tuck-undor garage that would be entered from the basement. Such a layout would alleviate the driveway slope concerns but would not be as functional for daily living, and would likely not result in tlic style or quality ofhome the applicant desires. While the applicants have refined their design to have the garage floor about 4' below the home’s main level, the driveway slope still ranges from 7% to nearly 10%; the City has no standard for individual driveway slopes, hut 10% is generally tlie upper limit for safe access. Offsetting the garage 28' westw.4d on the site would eliminate the bluff setback encroachment, but would also result in a much steeper driveway unless the garage is lowered an additional 2 feet. Driveway Location . TheexistingdrivcwayenterstIiesitefromtheshareddrivewayapproxiniatcly4'from the west side lot, then angles away from the line, to a point about 20' from the line about 100* into the site. The proposed driveway, apparently in order to preserve an existing tree and to maintain the length needed to limit the driveway slope, is within 2 feet of the side lot line and 5 feet above existing grade. This leaves an unacceptable slope (actually a severe drop-ofO adjacent to the outside curve and could be dangerous. Additionally, Orono ordinances do not allow grade changes within 5' ofthe lot line, and the final grade should not exceed 3:1. Adding a retaining wall here within S' of the lot tine is not acceptable. If the driveway location does not change from this proposal, applicant will have to obtain an casanent for grading onto the adjoining property, and revise the design to eliminate the drop-off. Planning Commission has also indicated to staff in the past that variances granted on the basis of 'trying to save a tree’ should not be granted, since it has been our experience that those trees as often as not end up dead witliin a year or two and the basis for the variance no longer exists...