03-16-1998 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked for clarification of the hardcover variance requested. Gaffron said the northern lot would not require variances in the 0-75' or 75-250'. The problem lies in the 250-500' zone from Maxwell and Crystal Bays. The amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' setback will not be totally utilized, and the applicant would like to take the excess and add it to the 250-500' allowable. Staff supports that request as it meets the intent of the code and the massing would be pulled further back from the lake. Smith, Mabusth, and Stoddard agreed that this scenario meets the intent of the code. Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, in noting the nice area along North Shore Drive, felt the use of rental or multi-housing would not be appropriate to the neighborhood. He asked that Lindquist's previous comments about not granting variances be carried through. Jack Swenson, 3020 North Shore Drive, said he felt the same as Marfield. He sees no reason to grant any variances and feels the character of North Shore Drive is one of single family residential. David Dalvey felt the application would result in cramming houses on a property and add to the busyness and crowding of the area. He did not believe the application was a good project. • Mr. Henson, 3216 North Shore Drive, said his property was next to the subject property. He noted the problem corner with the pump house location. He felt the proposal was a good use for the property in keeping the majority of the area single family. He noted more of the properties could be twinhomes. Henson supported the application and felt it would maintain the neighborhood's character. Gaffron noted that the issue of structural coverage has not been dealt with regarding the duplex. The proposed structural coverage is 4800 s.f. or 22% of the lot area where only 15% is allowed. Gaffron noted that if the applicant chose to withdraw the request for duplex and submitted a proposal for a single family residence, the lot width requirement would change to 100' and would likely have a smaller footprint. Jim DePetrow said he did not support the duplex proposal and felt the sentiment is for single family dwellings. Waade commented that if a single family residence was built, it would still be rental property. He felt the duplex would be better in quality than most of the area's homes. His targeted renter would be upper bracket. Waade said he plans on living in the single family residence and believes the project would clean up the area. He noted that a larger unit • building could be built on the property. 5