01-13-1986 - Agenda Packet City Council - city council (4)

Home Browse Search

COUNCIL Ott i iirG To: Orono Council Members ��J N `J7 1986 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoninq A,iwiristrator Date: January 23, 1986 CITY OF ORONO Subject: #987 Robert Bauman, 1040 Tonkawa Road -- Varia nce - S-cond Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Items 1 thru 9 discussing average lakeshore setback concept. Exhibit B - Survey with north -side option requiring side setback variance Exhibit C - Letter from applicant 1/23/86 Fxhibit D - Proposed resolution from 1/13/86 meeting fcr discussion purposes Exhibit E - Pool plans and elevations Exhibit F - Minutes of 11/1.8/85, 12/16j85, 1/13/86 Exhibit G - Staff memo of 1/9/86 Council tat,led this item on January 13th pending 3 items: 1) staff review the "average setback" ccncept; 2) applicant to re- consider optic..dl locations for the pool structure; and 3) staff to contact neighbors to ensure they are aware of the on -going review process for this application. You will recall that Mr. Bauman is requesting variances to the average iUkeshore setback and to hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Existing hardcover when the applicant bought the property was ?9.4%. Applicant has proposed hardcover tradeoffs yielding no net increase in hardcover. Staff has made an in --depth review of the average setback concept. I would refer you to Exhibit A, Items 1 thru 9, for a graphic discussion of the concept. Particularly, Item 1 reviews the "customary" method of defining average setback, as used by staff since about 1980. In the majority of cases when the shoreline is relatively straight, this method seems to yield a fair and just "average set- back". Now look at Exhil,it A, Item 3, which describes cne method of literally interpreting the code, which reads as follows: Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from t-hc shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shore- line than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. As you can see, using this interpretation, with the distance from the shoreline of adjacent and nearby houses measvied perpendicular to the line of the lakeshore at the closest point, this method yields an average setback of 991, which would mean that the pool proposal causes only a minimal 1'-2' encroachment.