Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#06-3247 <br /> ° 5 January 2007 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> Bluff Analysis/Retaining Walls <br /> Staff has conducted an analysis of the slope to determine whether it meets the criteria to <br /> be a bluff. While sigiuficant portions of the lot have slopes just above or just below 30%, <br /> we have concluded that it is not a bluff situation. However, staff questioiis the need for <br /> the lower retaining wall. The two proposed boulder walls a.re each 4 feet in height. The . <br /> lower wall does not appear to be necessary for slope stabilization for to help create a <br /> usable yard space; it merely creates an 8 foot terrace level. The applicant should address <br /> the need for tlus wall and tlie Planning Commissioii should consider whether screening is <br /> necessary. <br /> Hardship Statement � <br /> Applicant has coinpleted the Hardship Documentation Forin attached as Exhibit B, a.iid <br /> should be asked for additional testimoiiy regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> Ii: considerl�rg applicatlo�rs for variarzce, t/ee Pla�ri:ing Cofn�nissfo�: s/iall consirler t/ie effect of t/ce <br /> proposed variance i�pon tke hea11/t,sufety and welfare of t/1e co►ntnunity, existing aurl a�rticipate�l traffic <br /> conditions, light mul air, dunger of fire, risk to �he p«blic safety, a�trl the effect on vakres of property i�t <br /> t11e s��rrounding area. Tlte Plu�rftiug Comin�ssiat shall consider recontmending approval for variances � <br /> from ilte litera!provistons of t/ee Zoning Corle in i�rstmtces wllere tl�eir strict enforcen:ent woulrl catrse <br /> undue 1lartls/tip because of circrrmstances tt�riqtre to t/te i�zdividreal property under co�tsideration, a�:d <br /> sltall recot�:»tejtd approval only w/ten it is tlen:arstratetl tleat sicclt aclions wi!!be i�t keeping wit/e tlie <br /> spirit airtl�ntent of flie Orono Zoning Co�le. <br /> Staff finds the lot area and width are inherent to the property, and no additional land is <br /> available to increase the lot size. It is reasonable to grant variances to lot area and lot <br /> width for�the proposed hoine as it meets the required setbacks for the LR-1B zoning <br /> district,proposed hardcover and structural coverage levels also conform. <br /> Late in the review of this application it was brought to Staf�s attention that there was an <br /> issue regarding legal access to the propei-ty. The applicant has been directed to provide <br /> legal doctunentation showing legal ingress and egress to their property over the <br /> neighboring lots in order for the application to move on to Council. While this is an issue <br /> that must be resolved prior to Council review, Staff does not see reason to hold the <br /> applicatioii up at the Pla.iuung Commission level. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Is the lower retaining wall system appropriate a.nd iiecessary? Does it need <br /> screening? <br /> 2. Are there any ofiller issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff reconuneiids approval of the lot area and lot width variances subject to <br /> approval by the City�ngineer. <br /> � 3 <br />