Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#16-3877 <br /> November 15,2016 <br /> Page 7 of 8 <br /> When there is no home on one of the adjacent lakeshore lots, the required average setback <br /> is defined as the setback from the lake of the home on the opposite adjacent lot. When <br /> neither adjacent lot contains a home, the average setback is undefined, and the applicant's <br /> home may be placed at the required lake setback for that zone. <br /> The following unacceptable scenarios could result from strict enforcement of the ordinance: <br /> - If the first home to be built in the subdivision is on Lot 4, then if Lots 2 or 6 are <br /> vacant at the time someone wants to build on Lots 3 or 5, the average setback for <br /> Lots 3 or 5 would be established at the 400-foot setback of Lot 4,making Lots 3 and <br /> 5 unbuildable. <br /> - If a home is built on Lot 7 further west than depicted, which would still be <br /> conforming, that would potentially make Lot 6 unbuildable because the house on <br /> Lot 6 could not be moved further west due to topography and septic constraints. <br /> Similarly, because the homesite on Lot 5 is relatively inflexible, if the first house <br /> goes in on Lot 5 as proposed with no house on Lot 7 when Lot 6 is ready to build, <br /> Lot 6 cannot meet the required 200' setback established by the house location on <br /> Lot 5. <br /> The solution to avoid the need for individual variances resulting from the timing and <br /> location of each successive house construction is to grant a blanket variance, establishing <br /> conditions of approval that will ensure an appropriate review process in the event of a <br /> potential view encroachment. Staff would offer the following variance language and <br /> conditions: <br /> "The proposed house or possible house site location depictions for Lots 1 through 7, <br /> Block 1 as shown on the attached drawings which were established during final plat <br /> approval are approved for house construction in the locations depicted. Any <br /> substantial relocation of homes lakeward of said depictions which in the opinion of <br /> the Orono Community Development Director might impair lake views of one or <br /> more adjacent lakeshore lots may require an average lakeshore setback review by <br /> the Planning Commission and City Council." <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicant on behalf of the owners of Lots 1 thru 7 has submitted a Practical Difficulties <br /> Statement attached as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding <br /> the application. <br /> Neighbor Comments <br /> Staff has not received any comments from the neighbors as of this writing. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owners propose to use <br /> the properties in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official <br /> control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the blanket average lakeshore setback <br /> variances if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? <br />