Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> NIEL111`11 J ■J14 l6_ lJ_�+� <br /> • FF7 ) Confirmed) <br /> ±#_340 Robert WaariP - (`'�ntm <br /> Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it <br /> would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. <br /> The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would <br /> be best served by a multi-family unit from a development standpoint. <br /> Smith asked if the road outlot was taken into consideration for the 22% structural <br /> coverage. Gaffron said the road outlot would not be considered part of the lot area. <br /> Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he <br /> could reduce the size. Berg asked what style of building was being proposed. Waade said <br /> the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to <br /> be limited to 32'x40' to meet the standard. <br /> Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked <br /> whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. <br /> Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the <br /> lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlots would be required unless the front lot <br /> line was changed. There would be no change to the credit for ponding. <br /> 410 Smith asked for Waade's comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family <br /> residence to mitigate some variances. Waade said he would need to know what he would <br /> be allowed on the property. <br /> Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt <br /> some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway <br /> access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could <br /> be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit <br /> towards the extra 50% lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the <br /> structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. <br /> Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage was reduced. <br /> Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced <br /> to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f. footprint. <br /> Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the <br /> front lot/back lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. <br /> Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. <br /> • <br /> A <br />