05-21-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, � f.- , ' FILE#12-3547 ' May 16,2012 ._ ,__ ., .� Page 2 of 3 Additional Information Provided Applicant has provided an engineering report from Carl Anderson Engineering (Exhibit B) that suggests the slope stability is adequate for construction of a residence at the applicant's proposed location, and that the potential for erosion is mitigated by existing vegetation. In reviewing that report, staff would note that the comment on Page 4 of the report that "the slope of the hill immediafely below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 303� slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetfand that cause this to be defined as a bluff' does not appear to be consistent with the contours shown on the survey. Based on the survey, the slopes within the first 20-25 feet downslope from the driveway bed range from 28-32%for the length of the proposed house. The City Engineer has reviewed the submitted information and his comments are attached as Exhibit C. Please review. The applicant has suggested in his revised narrative (Exhibit A)that reducing the street setback from his proposed 30' to 25', and reducing the side setbacks from the required 30' to 25', will . have negative impacts completely out of character with the neighborhood. The staff sketch (Exhibit D) suggests that a residence 25' from the street'�lot line could be constructed with only minor triangular 5' encroachments into the 30' side setbacks, yielding a footprint including a triple garage of around 2150 s.f. Planning Commission should consider whether the potential visual impacts of 25' street and side setbacks are significant, and whether such a scheme would be more appropriate than granting variances to the bluff setback requirement. Staff's initial suggestion that the size of the footprint be reduced to near 1500 s.f has been reconsidered in light of reducing the side setbacks. The ability to construct a house of approximately 2150 s.f. footprint would then seem feasible. • Applicant has suggested that an excessively tall house would result from moving the structure 5 feet closer to the road. Staff believes that locating the house to meet the 30' bluff setback rather than the 15' setback proposed does not make it infeasible to set the house at the same floor elevations as proposed. It does mean that some excavation between the roadbed and the house (and potentially into the bluff impact zone) would be needed to have all or a portion of the east fa�ade of the house as a walkout, as opposed to having it be a lookout. A very limited excavation within the bluff impact zone might not be detrimental, and it would provide some usable flat yard area. Some of the noted trees along the west side of the old road bed might be saved under this scenario, most of which are within the 20' bluff impact zone where trees greater than 6-inch diameter require City approval to remove and require replacement. The applicant's potential lower garage area may be reasonable only if it does not require the establishment of a new driveway to access it, which could impact existing trees and have stormwater management impacts. The biggest issue would be managing runofffrom a driveway that would have,to traverse the slope around the side yard. We realize the potential storage space under the garage may be valuable given the footprint constraints of this lot. Bluff Protection As noted in the March staff report, protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of Orono's Shoreland regulations since adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone (20') and bluff setback requirement (30') are meant to limit