07-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L_ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 21. 2004 6 00 o’clock p.m. (7. tf04>3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road, >'ariaiice. Public Hearing ^continued) Rahn summarized ihc appliconi's proposal lo tear doun the existing 1 'i storx- house ofTof the foundation ana replace it with a single story house is in reality not a rebuild but new construction. And as such, comphance with setbacks is a prominent goal of the Planning Commission CafTron inieijecled that the ratio of volume of new construciion to existing in this case is 90“o new construction, therefore from staffs ’ perspective there is no justification for the hardships as the application is actually a total rebuild. Chair Mabusth added that there is no data to confirm that the existing foundation is acceptable Gaffron Mated that engineering data had not been requested yet but would do so w hen the .ipplication becoines more stable. Chair Mabusth stated the setback vanancr- could not be approved when there are other siructural building options for Ihc lot. She re*commcnded the application be tabled to allow the applicants an opportunity to consider revisions Mr. Anderson questioned if acqumiu! trading for 3o’ of propertv to the west sideyard to help enlarge the building envelope would benefit the application. GatTron responded that additional side propertv would solve the side vard setback problem, and |xMcntially could clean up the propen.v issue across Ihc road from the subject property However, the property to west (which is less than 2 (»acres) would become smaller, thougli the aggregate properly between the two properties would remain the same. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to indicate their position of potentially increasing a non-conforming lot si/c while solving a property road nglit-of-way issue to the north side of the pro* e y. Rahn pointed out it is key lo know what would be let) of the neighboring property and if setbacks would be compliant after a loss of 30’. It was a consensus that acquiring 3u’ would allow the proposed apnlicaiion to meet sideyard setbacks as long as Ihc westerly property remnant conformed to the 30’ Sideyard setback, loo. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission for its recommendation alunit the minimal encroachment of the existing structure within the 50’ front yard setback. It was a consensus to recommend the applicant remov e the old foundation under the existing screened porch. Gaffron indicated then the application, w ithout variance requests, would potentially meet the new administrative approval ordinance for lot area and width approval standards. Mrs. Anderson asked for the prccedure if they were not able to acquire additional property. She was advised the application then would need to return lo the Planning Commission with an option within the buildable envelope and meet setback standards. Leslie emphasized that give i the volume of new construction the properly would need to meet setbacks. GatTron explained that any construction beyond the existing walls and roofline would require a variance, including adding a 2’^’ story. Chair Mabusth summarized that with the proposed pmperty addition of 30’. the application would meet setback standards and would not have to return lo Ihc Planning Commission. Page 14 of 22