04-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� , FILE#15-3728 15 April 2015 Page 3 of 4 proposed as it is not an in-kind replacement and retaining walls are not permitted within 75' of the lake; the stair is permitted within the 0-75' and therefore not subject to the variance. The retaining walls will not result in an increase of hardcover over 25% as permitted and appear to be necessary to ensure stability of the slope without significant grading landward to stabilize the lake yard. There is a discrepancy in the survey information submitted for the new home permit and for this current variance application. Staff is working with the applicant to resolve the discrepancies and to adjust the plan such that total site hardcover is maintained at or below 25%. Basically, both of the existing and proposed versions of the survey submitted reflect landscape rock over fabric both above and below the boathouse where staff believes wooden deck exists in both areas. The 1992 survey from the file reflects a "wood deck" in the boathouse location. It is Staff's understanding that the intent with the permit for the new home in 2014 was that the wooden deck areas were to be replaced with landscape rock over fabric and the survey was prepared to indicate that as the intended non-hardcover material. As a result the permit application and proposed new home and proposed improvements met the required 25% limitation. This is not typically what is expected to be shown on a survey depicting both existing and proposed improvements. Rather the existing decks should have been shown to be replaced with landscape rock over fabric for the same hardcover calculation result. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the communiry, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on va/ues of property in the surrounding area. The P/anning Commission sha/l consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practica/difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approva/ only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that the variance to allow the construction of the reconfigured retaining wall within the 0 to 75 foot zone appears to be reasonable and consistent with similar properties in the neighborhood and the retaining wall plan will offer an improvement from the existing wooden tiered walls when viewed from the lake. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans; no significant concerns were noted. The applicant will be required to resolve the inconsistencies between existing site hardcover and proposed hardcover regarding the in-kind replacements and maintain a 25% hardcover limit. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood?