Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler noted Staff recommendation is for approval and Lot 2 is the one they wanted to clarify on record <br /> as a condition to verify the width is 200 feet. <br /> Barnhart replied yes. <br /> Bollis moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA21-000021,1485 6th Ave N,Preliminary Plat with Staff <br /> recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 <br /> 7. LA21-000022 ALLIANCE BUILDERS, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NO/ PID 32-118-23-34-0006, <br /> VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) <br /> Efim Shukalovich,Applicant,was present. <br /> Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden noted the Planning Commission saw this <br /> property not too long ago. The Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and Staff recommends <br /> approval. This property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 <br /> (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2-foot setback to the north, and a 15.5-foot setback to <br /> the south property line for side yard setbacks, addressing the neighbor's comment to create maximum <br /> setbacks to the north at that time. The Applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing <br /> to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties have and as the previous house <br /> footprint had but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. She said the Applicant <br /> is maintaining the same side yard setbacks but it a new house footprint so it is a new volume and house <br /> footprint within those required yards. The Applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out <br /> basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the <br /> setbacks is being proposed. That new footprint within the required yard is the trigger for the Commission's <br /> re-review and this additional variance. The property is non-conforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres <br /> and in width at 123.77 feet,where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, so it is <br /> substandard. The Applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the <br /> requested variances. Staff fmds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and the <br /> building envelope of the property. She noted a lot analysis was done as well as an analysis of that side yard <br /> setback. Staff has found supportive findings for practical difficulty requirements and is recommending <br /> approval of the proposed side yard setback variances with that new footprint. She noted on screen there is <br /> an overlay where the yellow is the proposed house footprint and the blue was the original approved; the <br /> white is the overlap. Originally there was some approval of house on the side and the front and the new <br /> proposed house is pulled back about two feet from the original for the front yard, but they are proposing <br /> more massing on the north side and the south side with the wrap-around deck. Most of that additional <br /> footprint is to the rear of the house so it should not make too big of an impact from the street. The Applicant <br /> also reached out to that neighbor who commented originally and spoke with them about maintaining that <br /> setback. <br /> Ressler clarified the new footprint of the front yard setback is the trigger and asked if that is correct. <br /> Oakden noted it is the side yard setback. <br /> Ressler clarified and said they are improving the front yard setback. <br /> Oakden replied that is correct. <br /> Page 20 of 34 <br />