Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 16,2019 <br /> 6:30 p.m. <br /> Curtis indicated there is one PID. <br /> Erickson asked if someone could subdivide this property. <br /> Curtis indicated they would need to request a subdivision, and since it is located in a half-acre district, it <br /> is not eligible to be subdivided. <br /> Erickson stated he recalls an application where they were requesting a 1-foot setback, and the end result <br /> was that it was not approved. At that time Staffs report said that many of the homes in that area were at a <br /> seven or eight-foot rear setback. This report suggests a 10-foot setback,which may be appropriate since <br /> this is new construction. Erickson stated his difficulty would be trying to support the 6.3-foot rear <br /> setback. While that might be okay in a really high-dense area,that is not appropriate for this lot. <br /> McCutcheon stated the house is big, has retaining walls, and is close to the trail. While he can understand <br /> the frustration that everyone else in this neighborhood has maximized their lot,this lot is shallow. The <br /> setback to the rear is pretty significant and does not seem to fit the character of the neighborhood. <br /> Ressler stated the building envelope is probably the main issue. Ressler noted he lives on Crystal Bay <br /> and that he personally received five variances for his house. The one thing that was told to him at the <br /> time was to improve his position because then it is easier to mitigate. While he loves the design of the <br /> house, he worries about the precedent it sets by going beyond the 20 percent for a similar sized lot, and <br /> that sometimes it is easier to build up than out. <br /> Ressler stated growing up in this area he knows that Crystal Bay Road has evolved a great deal and a lot <br /> of that new development has been up rather than out. Having the neighbors in support of the project is <br /> helpful. <br /> Quinlivan stated when they do the calculation for structure and you take the road out, it brings it down to <br /> the mid 10's. The road could be considered a hardship and it seems to penalize the homeowner because <br /> the lot is so wide. <br /> Curtis stated it would bring the lot down to approximately 11,000 square feet. <br /> Quinlivan asked whether there would be consideration for that. <br /> Ressler stated when someone is requesting variances and there are other moving parts,they need to have <br /> some mitigating factors to improve the situation. The difficulty the Planning Commission has is going <br /> outside the boundaries of what the structural coverage limits are. <br /> Thiesse noted last year it was 15 percent structural coverage and the City has increased that to 20 percent. <br /> Bollis asked if anyone sees a road going through the lot as a practical difficulty. <br /> Curtis indicated the road is not included. <br /> Quinlivan noted that also drops the square footage of the lot. <br /> Page 15 of 24 <br />