06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #01-2671 AUSTAIR AND KAREN JACQI ES, Continued) 2001, the application was delayed when septic sites could not be located. In 2003 City sewer became available to the site and. subsequently, the applicant activated the application for a new home construction. GafTron indicated the property is not located within the Shorcland Overlay District and therefore is not subject to hardcover restrictions. GafTron reported the proposed plans meet all other zoning requirements c.xcept for lot area, referring to the Lot Analysis Worksheet included in the agenda packet. He concluded that a valid hardship exists and that the lot IS a legal loiHif-record. that a home existed thae for many years pn»>r to its demolition in 2001. and that there are other properties along the same stretch of Old Long Lake Road which are under the 2 acre requirement so It IS in keeping w ith the neighborhood lot sizes. GafTron slated staff supports the tut area variance GafTron e.xplaincd access to the house is from Old Long Ijike Road with a proposed second access, requmng the Public Services Director's approval The garage is facing the side lot line with a 30'setback required, leaving about a 25’ apron upon a slope that is a potential concern, pahaps needing a retaining wall which by code must be at least 5* from the side lot line, and there are some existing trees to contend w ith if moved to the left. GafTron advised drainage would have to be controlled in this area as the neighbor’s house is near-by GafTron encouraged the Planning fommission to considsr shifting the house site lo the west lo make the easterly side lol less of a dift'icult area. In addition and not pan of this application, the applicant is proistHing to construct a 30’ \ 18’ pool to be located 15’ from the east and south lot lines which meets code requirements. The pool plan includes a terrace patio that will require retaining walls ranging from 1 ’ to 6’ in height, y from the lot line. He indicated a screening or .safety fence aKivc the wall* will probably be placed by the property owners resulting in a potential visual impact equivalent to a building wall as much as 12* high. 5’ from the rear lot line, though not required by City code Gaffton advised that the City docs nut have established setbacks friKTi the Luce Line nght-of-way and the proposed pool liKation is only 40’ from the Luce Line Me pi'-nted out that a greater side lot setback and Icss-visual impact to the neighbors w oulJ occur w ith a site plan that was shifted to the west. Chair .Mabusih invited the applicant. Alisuir Jacques, to comment. Mr. Jacques advised that the house's position is not yet finalized and they arc convideriiig a number of factors, including the neighbor’s interest relative to the driveway locat;on ('hair Mabusth a»ked for public comments Matt ‘vherek, 625 Old Long Lake Road, adv ised he is the easterly neighbor lo the subject property and is not opposed to the residential construction, and has reviewed the applicant’s plans. He explained his residence was built in 1956 and was situated to maximize nature enjoyment, upen space and to envure projnrr surface w ater drainage to meet code It is located on a nsc in the N'W comer of the 1 5-acre lot. sloping down to a low marsh on the east. Mr Sherck stated the applicant’s plan for the garage and dnveway encroaches into the 30’ side yard setback in the very comer closest lo his residence rendering his home and garage almost to town hoiiK staiu.s. not to mention serious questions about effects of water and drainage lo his home and the mar<h. He concluded that the applicant’s house garage driveway location would destroy the ambience and secmsion of the land enjoyed by he and his family as well as lowering the re-sale value of hts home and property by situating the most highly traveled, noise-producing portion of any h' me. the driveway and garage, directly upon his property line. Page 2 0140