01-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

reasons. Orono, however, is unique in its breakdown of the impervious coverage ordinances into separate zones. Although the 75-250 ft. setback zone in this property is 34.2% hardcover, no hardcover exists within the 0-75 ft, setback zone, and only 10.2% hardcover exisfs within fhe 250+ ft zone, putting the entire property in an impervious to property ratio of 20.9%..It is the narrowness of the property and the concentration of the hardcover in one zone that makes this property non- conforming, peculiar in nature, and thus, problematic. What about harmful impact to the Lakeshore area? The proposed plan is similar to the previously approved resolution. It will eliminate 247 square feet of hardcover in areas closer to the lake than where it is being added, and the proposed property - will, at project completion, have an impervious surface ratio acfually less than the current level (i.e. we do not plan to add to the hardcover total). In other words, drainage and opportunities for rainwater and runoff to access the water table in lieu of spilling into the lake will be improved, not made worse, by this plan. � Are you taking_a conforming property and makinq it non-conforminq? Definitely not. Moreover, fhe property and house are already considered non-conforming, and it was determined by the City Council in 2002 that 34.2% hardcover within the 75-250 ft. setback zone was necessary in order to preserve substantial property rights of the applicants and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Whv now? Why didn't this come up four years aqo2 � , The variance process that took place in 2002 occurred before the owners began to think about their aging children and the idea that someday they would be driving. Now their boys are older and this reality is now upon them. During construcfion, they did begin this thought, and when the time came to perform the impervious removals, they went above and beyond in anticipation of this future request. Now they are prepared to make this improvement in their home, and we find ourselves back with the same impervious discussion. The argument this time is fhat they do not wish to leave a car parked outside in the driveway 365- days-a-year. A car parked outside is considered by some to be unsiglitly and detrimental to the aesfhetic of the neighborhood. Additionally, if parking does occur in the driveway, it likely would be done in the turnaround area so thaf the cars in the existing garage can get by the third car. This however, eliminates the process of turning around and would force the applicants to back out into the street, sacrificing the public welfare and safety. Synopsis r Like the previously approved variance, this request is again straightforward. Overall existing site conditions (impervious) will be improved, the City Council has already resolved to allow this property to maintain a 34.2% hardcover percentage, and the garage addition will serve to improve the home and fhe public welfare, making it less likely a car will be commonly backed into the street. There are no negative implications to this specific lot, its immediate neighbors, or to the neighborhood in general. The public welfare is not in harm's way, and the continuation of fhe previous variance or granting of a new variance given these newly proposed plans, provides no special provision fo this lot that other residents of Orono are not entitled. Hardship is present, in fact recognized, and the plans maintain the spirit of the comprehensive plan of the city. . � �� }�,*- � �� .. ' �^'' f{'�# r�'\ r 3 � " /� n-s� i'4' �� ��t � 'fY} �� iG r�� i�,i�� `i F„�f' �" � . . ��:,{� �` '_.� tf �'! �;�� ..�'f r t`1 M f�J+ . . �� , � f'� �:�� .� ('r1 K'. �y;.� ti:? �p , r �"+�..✓�� rY.~