Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 16,2019 <br /> 6:30 p.m. <br /> The applicant's redevelopment plan includes some subsurface stormwater improvements to offset the <br /> proposed hardcover levels. Due to the property's small size and depth, its location on Crystal Bay Road, <br /> the proximity of the lake,the road, and the Dakota Rail trail to the rear,there are many challenges to <br /> redevelopment. <br /> The property is approximately 150 feet wide but only 95 feet deep. When the average lakeshore setback <br /> is applied to the property, in addition to the 75-foot lake setback and the 30-foot rear yard setback,the <br /> property is completely unbuildable. The new home,while proposed to meet the average lakeshore <br /> setback, includes hardcover within the 75-foot lake yard. The proposed hardcover level of 49.6 percent is <br /> a 1,843 square foot increase from the existing conditions. Existing structural coverage is 11 percent and <br /> the applicant is proposing 31.1 percent. As with most other Crystal Bay lots,this calculation is based on <br /> an adjusted lot area excluding Crystal Bay Road. The applicant's proposal exceeds what would be <br /> allowed even if the road area was included. <br /> The existing detached garage encroaches approximately eight feet lakeward of the average lakeshore <br /> setback line but the house is currently conforming. The applicant's proposed building improvements are <br /> shown to meet the average lakeshore setback. There are walls proposed within the average lakeshore <br /> setback which are for the most part at or below 42 inches. After meeting with Staff,the applicant has <br /> verbally agreed to remove the walls. <br /> Staff does find practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the property in addition to the <br /> location of the roadway and lake to justify some level of variances for redevelopment. However,the <br /> applicant is proposing redevelopment on this property at a scale which is unsupported by practical <br /> difficulties and is far beyond what is reasonable for the property and neighborhood to support. <br /> The City Engineer's comments are included in Staff's memo. <br /> After a thorough review, Staff is recommending denial of the plan. Staff met with the property owner and <br /> their design team on a number of occasions to review the plan as it was being developed to reach a level <br /> of variances that would be more appropriate. The resulting plan does not follow Staff's guidance. The <br /> applicant should be directed to submit a revised plan which reduces structural coverage to a conforming <br /> level and reduces the hardcover. The building footprint should be modified and the use of retaining walls <br /> should be re-evaluated. The existing fence and any other encroachments on the HCRAA property should <br /> be eliminated. <br /> Ressler asked what the existing side setback is and what it is proposed to be. <br /> Curtis indicated there are some retaining walls that are on the side. Based on the proposed height,those <br /> will likely need variances. Staff's guidance was for a revision of the plan and a thorough review of the <br /> retaining walls was not done. The side yard setbacks far exceed the required 10 feet. The rear setback is <br /> at 6'13"where a 30-foot setback is required. Generally a 10-foot setback in this neighborhood is <br /> recommended. <br /> Ressler asked if 6.3 inches is proposed,the code is 30 feet, and the general neighborhood characteristics is <br /> 10 feet. <br /> Curtis stated the character of the neighborhood is all over the map. When redevelopment occurs in this <br /> neighborhood, Staff is looking for a minimum setback to allow for a rear yard. The property does have <br /> Page 11 of 24 <br />