Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

09 -3428 14 October 2009 Page 4 of 5 request for the setback variance from the creek . Perhaps reducing and rearranging the footprint slightly would reduce or eliminate the need for this variance. Additionally , the applicants are proposing to keep the existing hedge which surrounds and screens the property . 4. How may the hardcover impacts be offset? The applicants have proposed native plantings in conjunct ion with this project between the proposed home and the creek . The Commission should discuss whether or not use of permeable surfaces for the new driveway , courtyard , patios and other hardcover surfaces is appropriate . 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Discussion The precedent has been set regarding approval of the requested lot area variances . The City routinely grants these types of requests when no other land is available for acquisition , the lot was legally created prior to adoption of the current zoning standards , and a house existed on the lot when the current zoning standards were adopted. The property is undersized relative to the zoning district requirements , however staff finds that a reasonable home could be constructed within the required setbacks , although perhaps not as architecturally attractive a house . Considering the disproportionate lot area and zoning requ irement it may be reasonable to grant setback variances to the side and even street yard requirements. However staff consistently holds to the lake and creek setbacks where feasible . Staff would note that the applicants ' proposal includes 38 'x26 ' garage completely within the 75 ' creek setback . This is likely an issue of finding the appropriate house for the lot. Perhaps the applicants ' proposed house isn 't the most appropriate one for this lot. Regarding the hardcover levels proposed staff finds that although the applicant has proposed beneficial changes to the property , namely moving the gravel driveway out of the 75 ' setback and moving it to a safer location off of Crestview, and propos ing a significant amount of vegetative buffer, some required by the wetland ordinance , there is still a large amount of excess hardcover proposed on the property . The square footage of the proposed home, vehicle courtyard and patios are inconsistent with the philosophy of maintaining the minimum level of hardcover necessary to have reasonable use of the property and protection of surface water resources . The proposed bridge over Stubbs Bay Creek poses a number of issues . First, Orono Code Section 78-1279 prohibits structures within 75' of this Protected Tributary . Second , the bridge constitutes hardcover within 75 ' of the tributary , which is not allowed per Section 78- 1288(a). Additionally , the bridge cannot be considered the equivalent of a "stairway, lift , landing or lockbox" that would be allowed at the shoreline of a lake per Section 78-1282 because it is not needed for access to the shore due to the presence of a bluff or steep slope . Also , the bridge would appear to function merely as an amen ity to the property -it does not provide necessary access to a portion of the property that is lacking accessib ility , because the property south of the creek can be accessed d irectly from the public roads in the immed iate vicinity. Finally , there is a concern that should the creek reach a level that would inundate the bridge or its underpinnings, the bridge could fail and be swept downstream and conceivably contribute to blockage of the culvert under Bayside Road , causing flooding . While this occurrence is unlikely , it is not impossible. For all the reasons noted above , staff recommends that the proposed bridge not be allowed .