12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2618 Casco Point Road December 13.2004 Page 3 The two recent anomalies that are clear from this table are the Lx)fYler and Switz properties on Shadywood Road, which received 33% and 38.6% respectively in 2004. Many of the hardships stated for these lots are not specifically present in the Vogstrom application: For Lofiler (1690 Shadyw'ood) the hardships stated in the resolution are summarized as: 1) on a busy County road, need a backup apron; 2) location of the adjacent homes, pushing house toward the street would reduce lake views causing a tunnel effect; and 3) non-optimum lot shape analysis results in justification for a 289 s.f. variance. Hardships 1) and 2) don ’t apply to the Vogstrom lot; Hardship 3) would give Vogstrom an extra 580 s.f. resulting in a 32.5% hardcover allowance. For Switz, the hardships stated in the resolution are summarized as: 1) non-optimum lot shape analysis results in justification for a variance for 32%; 2) on a busy County road, need a backup apron; 3) at 15% of lot area, house itself accounts for more than 25% of the 75-250' zone; 4) unusually large removals of hardcover (2050 s.f) will be removed from 0-75’ zone. Hardships 2 and 4 don ’t apply to Vogstrom; Hardship 1 would give Vogstrom 32.5% as noted above; Hardship 3 is an anomaly, where for a nearly-conforming lot a substantial hardcover variance was granted to accommodate 15% lot coverage, instead of requiring reduction of lot coverage to a level where a reasonable amount of hardcover is needed. Hardship 3 if applied to the Vogstrom lot suggests that hardcover would be granted to allow a 2140 s.f footprint... 5) Optimum lot shape analysis: From staff s perspective, the optimum lot shape analysis has some inherent weaknesses. If most of Orono ’s 1000+ existing lakeshorc lots arc of non- optimal shape, which is probably the case, then optimum lot shape analysis is merely a method to more fairly allot excess hardcover, as compared to the perceived randomness of the variance process. 1 lowevcr, the optimum lot shape analysis calculation, used only in the last year and only for a small number of applications, has contributed to what seems to be excessive hardcover allowances as compared to those granted for similar lots in previous years. Staff is reluctant to continue using the current optimum lot .shape analysis method as a basis for hardcover variances, as it suggests that all lots not meeting the optimum shape should be allowed excess hardcover, which translates to an automatic variance level for almost all existing lots. If this is going to become the standard, then the code should be changed. 6) Hardcover reduction from 4,732 s.f. to 2,647 s.f.: Please remember that the proposed hardcover reductions resulting from this application are primarily in driveway removals occurring within City right-of way. Of the 4,732 s.f of existing hardcover, 2,704 s.f is existing driveway in the right-of-way to the immediate north of the site, with almost no diiveways existing on the property. This non-conforming driveway situation should not be considered as a strong justification for a hardcover variance, since there is no reason that a sufficient driveway of much smaller area could not be developed within the property. Staff is prepared to discuss any of the above in greater detail at Council ’s request.