03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■r ■ *'■■? f ■":;?■■'■ ti'.■;4^'^ ■ ■ ■.:■* „:..J^--«IMi.lyB g & Zoning Administrator cordla Street - • — Referral Back Front Council by the Planning Commistlon on Bsion recommended denial of the amending approval for a ground- the existing patio deck near the voted 4-0 to deny the walk-out apport its approval. The Council 1 hardcover associated with the roposal for grading* which would yard down to a depth of 3' below posal has been referred by the r review. 3/2/88 Hardcover Calculations as Revised .akeshore Setbacks •r with Grading Plans, Elevation in View of Deck ‘Shore Area ) Cherry Place Cut Relative Visual Impact jnal Methods n Cook s James Piegat er Letter sheet ■: ■:,v. • ./ = - yvV^ •i■Iff'' ^sScming File #1223 March I, 1918 Page 2 of I 6iecmeei< During the review of this application# applicant asked the City to consider its policy on lakeshore grading in light of what seems to b« inconsistent action in similar past cases. In fact, on at least one occasion on Cherry Place in 19i3. the Council approved a cut to create a walk-out that is very similar to what Waldron originally proposed. A photo submitted by Waldron of that Cherry Place property indicates that such a walk-out cut does have a potential for detracting from the natural character of th« lahcahore. The applicant's revised proposal suggests that n 3* deep excavation froei the house to the lakeshore bank will have a beneficial effect on the stability of the lakeshore bank as compared to other methods. Staff has wrestled with various ways to delineate and quantify the valid public concerns relating to this lakeshore bank project. To this end, staff has devised a "point system" that attempts to assess the visual and environmental isg>acts of the various bank restoration methods available for use. The attached table is the result of that assessment process. What constitutes a valid public concern? Certainly, environmental protection is a valid concern, and the Environmental Plan section of the City of Orono Community Management Plan suggests that the visual impact of a project as viewed from the lake or from other properties is a valid public concern, in addition to the concern for lake water quality. The economic feasibility of a private project is not necessarily a valid public concern, but may become a valid public concern if such a project that has negative public impact if not completed, cannot be feasibily completed due to the financial capabilities of a property owner. 1 am not suggesting that the City subsidize lakeshore bank restoration, but am suggesting that the City should not necessarily force a homeowner into the most expensive restoration method if less expensive methods are available that will accomplish the same goals. Staff has sketched nine various methods for restoration of the applicant's lakeshore banks, most of which have been discussed to a certain degree by the Planning Commission and Council, and each of which has both advantages and disadvantages for both the property owner and the public in general. There are some underlying physical principals that apply to each of the methods; M V>'