Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 <br />( #5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) <br />Mabusth reviewed direction given by the Planning Commission in previous meetings <br />advising that structural coverage be minimized in order to meet the code. The setback <br />variances were to be reduced. It was also requested that no new addition be permitted to <br />the east so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the northeast. A 6' expansion is <br />proposed on the east side. <br />The variances required in the application are for setbacks, hardcover in the 250' -500' <br />setback area and lot area. Mabusth said the proposal involves a 2 -story residence with the <br />attached garage. The residence structure would be 50' from the Bayside right -of -way with <br />the covered deck at 45' setback. The garage, which encroached Landmark Drive, will be <br />removed. The 15' setback from the west lot line would satisfy the agreement with the <br />Landmark Homeowners Association. The City requires a 50' setback A 3' setback <br />variance would be required from the north side lot line. 15% structural coverage is <br />allowed and is proposed at 14.3 %. There is a hardcover allowance of 30% in the 75 -250' <br />setback and is proposed at 48.2% for a 18.2% excess. <br />Smith asked what changes were made to the variance requests from the earlier proposal. <br />Mabusth explained that there is now an increase in the lot area reducing hardcover and <br />structural coverage excesses. Setback variances would be required for the expanded <br />• second story. Smith said the proposal for 4 bedrooms, a den, and a porch was still <br />excessive in her viewpoint. <br />The applicant had no additional comments but was asked about the possible loss of the <br />maples trees on the east side. Stephens said there would be some loss of the maple trees <br />but was unsure how healthy one of the trees is. He noted that there would be a loss of 2 <br />oak trees to the south. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Hawn said she was concerned with the tear down of homes on substandard lots and the <br />rebuilding of homes larger than intended for a particular zoning area. She noted that the <br />codes were present to ensure the proper size homes for a lot size. She was not in favor of <br />a second story expansion with the current foundation problem. <br />Peterson opined that approving the side and rear setbacks created a problem. <br />Smith said with proposals of rebuilding on new foundations, the City was more critical and <br />stringent in applying the codes. <br />• <br />