Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 <br />0 (#4 - #2099 Loren B emann - ruegg Continued) <br />Gaffron continued explaining that the property consists of a single house and two cabins. <br />Westlake Street is sewered, and said property has been provided with one unit and <br />assessed for same. The house overlaps Lots 10 and 11. A storage building is within Lot <br />11. The two cabins are mainly in Lot 12. A septic system is currently being used on the <br />property serving all 3 dwellings. There are separate tax statements for each lot, but <br />historically, the property has been used as a single lot. There is a single driveway, septic, <br />well, and one owner resulting in the City viewing this as a single site. <br />A 20' corridor is proposed as access for the easterly proposed parcel. The existing house <br />and cabins are to be removed and one home is proposed in that area. The proposed new <br />home would meet the 75' setback. The flag lot proposal creates a front/back lot <br />configuration . Because the code requires a 30' outlot of. 14 acre, the front lot (Lot 1) <br />would be .76 acre, and lot 2 would be 1.09 acres. The outlot acreage is not to be counted <br />in the total acreage. 150% of acreage, or 3 acres, is required for the backlot. This would <br />result in a 65 -701/6 variance. The front lot, where 2 acres is required, would be about 3/4 <br />acre, and would also need a large lot area variance. Both proposed lots meet the required <br />lot width measured at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback line. The platted alley south of <br />the 2 lots has not been vacated, hence, not all of the shoreline is attributable to the lots. <br />The backiot, Lot 2, requires 150% of the 30' side setback or 45'. The required 50' setback <br />• for Lot 1 from the access outlot creates a narrow building envelope requiring side setback <br />variances for a minimal 30 -35' wide house. <br />• <br />Gaffron reported that the hardcover standards are nearly met by the proposal. Lot I <br />hardcover is proposed at 28.8% requiring a variance, but lot 2 hardcover is proposed at <br />20.5 %, where the requirement is 25 %. The hardcover numbers as listed in the submitted <br />information are different due to lack of an outlot. For the entire site, the overall hardcover <br />with the driveway would be at 35 %. While this "overall hardcover" standard is not in the <br />code, the DNR recommends 25 %. Orono's standard of 25% in the 75 -250' zone is nearly <br />met. <br />Gaffron said there are conceptual problems with the subdivision itself. The memo lists 12 <br />examples of how the existing situation is nonconforming. With the nonconformities and <br />the historical use of the property, Staff noted that none of the 3 existing lots conform in <br />area, width, or setback, and individually could not be built upon. The lot line <br />rearrangement to 2 sites would not meet code. The proposal is defined as a Class 2 <br />Subdivision. Based on the factors listed in the memo where it is shown that an increase in <br />density could not be allowed, Gaffron said Staff could not recommend approval of this <br />proposal. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to look at the neighborhood and the <br />consistency in zoning within that neighborhood. <br />4 <br />