06-12-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' t t' ■*■ I.. * To: From: Date: Subject: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planncr Mayor and City Council Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator, June ’, 2000 #2581 - 1687 Concordia Street - Staff Recommendation re: Lake Setback Staff recommended to Planning Commission that at least a 50' setback should be required for this residence, if not 75’. This is a teardown/rebuild, with the opportunity to meet all required setbacks. In the past the City has treated reconstruction very strictly, in most cases requiring that all setbacks be met when it is feasible to do so, while often granting substantial hardcover variances where substandard lots are involved. Planning Commission on May 15 recommended granting variances to allow the proposed 42* setback. I disagree with this conclusion for the reasons noted below, and suggest that a 50' minimum setback should be required for this and future adjacent applications. Justifications for requiring a 75' setback in this application include: it is physically possible to place the structure at the 75' setback without being limited by other setbacks. the City’s standard for structure setbacks to the lake is 75'; the clear intent of the ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan is to provide an environmental buffer as well as a visual buffer between structures and the shoreline. Many Orono lakeshore homes do not meet this standard, not did they at the time it went into effect (early 1970's), but the majority of lakeshore homes which have been rebuilt since the early 1970's have been oquired to meet this standard when it was possible to do so. There are exceptions, but most exceptions have been justified either because there were unusual conditions or there were obvious hardships. In this request the applicant cites three specific justifications for not meeting the 75’ setback: 1.The lot is low and acts as a drainage basin for the neighboihood after major storms; if the house was moved back to the 75' line it would be partially within the area that floods. Staff does not dispute that this is a problem. Tlie adjacent homes are both nearer the lake than 75', and moving this one to 75' will cause new lake view impairments for the applicant that currently don ’t exist. Unfortunately, this train of think’ng works against the City’s long-term goals. If no homes were ever moved back to the 75' line because the neighboring homes were closer to the lake, then the City would never reach its goal of having most homes meeting the 75' standard. However, in the past the City has normally adnunistered its average setback ordinance to only protect the non-moving party; and that is how