09-21-2009 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� 1 � t 09-3411 11 August 2009 Page 4 of 5 existing and anticipated traffic conditions, lighf and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with fhe spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Issues for Consideration Conditional Use Permit The fill is necessary to provide a location for the home outside of the floodplain. The Planning Commission should discuss the peripheral impacts and potential opportunities as a result of the floodplain mitigation on the property, i.e. tree and vegetation removal, buffer � strips, etc. Variances Absent the other variances requested, this property would qualify for administrative approval of the lot width and lot area. The precedent has been set regarding approval of the requested area and width 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. Will the proposed house be compatible with the surrounding area? The adjacent house, 1101 Ferndale Road, is two stories. It was constructed in 1996 to replace a single story house. It has a peak height of 32 feet and a defined height of 26 feet. The proposed house would have a peak height of 38 feet and a defined height of 21 feet. Please see Exhibit F for a comparison of the proposed home with respect to the neighboring homes. What is the impact of the average lakeshore setback variance on adjacent homes? While the proposed home is situated 32 feet further from the lake than the existing home it still is considerably ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also, the proposed home will be approximately 16 feet taller than the existing home. Exhibit F illustrates the impact of the average lakeshore setback encroachment on the adjacent homes. Staff suggests the Commission discuss this continued and different encroachment and its potential negative effects on the neighboring properties. What are the safety implications of not having the 15 foot setback? The setback is intended protect the foundation from being undermined during a flood. This is more of an issue when the floodplain is from a river or stream, where the flood waters have the velocity to cause erosion, rather than from a lake. The exposed lakeshore is protected by riprap. The building code may require additional measures to protect the foundation. Staff suggests the Commission discuss the size of the house in relation to the request for the setback variance from the floodplain. Perhaps reducing the footprint slightly would eliminate the need for this variance.