03-19-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

r FILE#12-3547 � 9 March 2012 Page 4 of 5 instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical di�cu/ties because of circumstances unique to the individua/ 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. Discussion The subject property was platted in 1969 and has remained vacant and owned by the adjacent, adjoining property owner for the most part. City Code Section 82-86 protects a subdivision for up to two years following final plat approval from changes to the comprehensive plan or zoning controls to affect the use, density, lost size, etc. This period may be extended by the City, however after this time period changes to the comprehensive plan and codes shall apply to all properties. Regarding the average lakeshore setback, the code offers the property owner the option to pursue administrative relief provided the neighbors provide written approval. If the written approval is not an option for whatever reason, staff finds the City may grant a variance citing practical difficulties. Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone (20') , and bluff setback requirement (30') are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. The applicant's potential lower garage area would require additional grading and potentially greater impacts to the area adjacent to the home. At a minimum staff would suggest the lower garage be eliminated from the plan. Regarding bluff areas in general it is staff's position that, particularly in new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met, and variances should not be granted. The private road serving this neighborhood is approximately 20 feet in width and does not have a full, 80-foot diameter paved cul-de-sac at the end as would be required today. The road basically ends at the driveways of the three end homes. The proposed 20-foot encroachment into the rear setback may not appear to be as significant as if a paved cul-de-sac existed. The five existing homes along this private road each meet the required 50-foot street setback requirement; the Planning Commission should determine whether granting a variance to allow a 30-foot setback is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. In order to meet the required bluff setback the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved closer to the street. The proposal is for a 2,354 square foot home and garage footprint. City Code Section 78-1403 states that each developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of principal structure (including garage). Perhaps combination of a greater variance to the rear setback combined with a reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet would result in elimination ofthe bluffvariances... Further, the applicant's assertion that the property has been taxed as a "buildable lot" should have no bearing on the Planning Commission's review of the zoning related issues associated with this application.