12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II k // MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05*3152 Bohland Development, Continned) Oaffron recommended the Planning Commission make a motion requesting that the Council review this Opplication conceptually for PRD and clustering concept. Rahn moved, Kempf seconded, to table Application #05-3152, BoUand Development on behalf of James D. Mackinnon, et al, *‘3500” Watertown Road, to allow for council review of the plan to determine If It meets the standards of the Rnral Oasis Plan. VOTE: Ayes5,NaysO. NEW BUSINESS 4. #05-3142 CHRISTOPHER AND EMILY CHAPMAN, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:18 PJM. - 7:39 P.M. Emily Chapman, Applicant, was present. Oundlach stated the applicant is requesting two variances in order to construct a 12* by 12’ shed on the property east of the existing garage. A hardcover variance is being requested to permit hardcover within the 0-250* zone of 30 percent where 0 percent hardcover in the 0-75* zone and 25 percent in the 75*-2S0' zone are normally required and 30 percent in the 0-250* zone was proved by variance in June of 2004. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a street/rear yard setback variance to pennit the proposed shed to be located 21 feet from the property line where 50 feet is nonnaliy required and the existing home was pennitted to be set back 21 feet from the property line by variance. Gundlach noted the property had received variances for the required street (rear) yard setba.k, lake sedwek, and hardcover in June of2004. The property is uniqve in that its area is quite large due to the length of shoreline; however, is very shallow where ^ required street or rear yard setback overlaps with the required 75-foot lake settock. At the time the 2004 variances were approved, the applicant, whe was the builder and not the cunent owner, requested to rebuild on the existing footprint, which was approved as no compliant buildable area existed on the property. ' The applicant had indicated that they would like to remove non-structiiral hardcover, like the sidewalk and driveway, in an effort to obtain approval of the construction of a shed to store lawn equipment and other items. While no elevation views of the proposed shed have been submitted, the applicants have indicated the shed will be constructed of materials consistent with the architectural style of the home. The applicants have proposed to remove 147.5 square feet of non-structural hardcover in order to oe permitted a shed. This would result in a net decrease in the hardcover of approximately 3.5 square feet. Staff finds that the property is unique due to the overlapping street and lake setback requirements with the additional wetland restrictions. Those hardships are documented in Resolution 5198 approved in 2004. The proposal meets the intent of the code, being that no increase in hardcover is proposed, the shed is not located closer to the street than the existing house, the lake setback is met, as well as wetland and side PAGE 11