02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WcdMtday, JMaary 22,2003 6:30 o*clMk p.n. (i•^2•i0 SLNSTATC CONCEPTS. CoMtoaed) Originally, a I acre zoning district, the zoning is-as changed in 1975 to 2 acre mmimum and well and •eptoc serves the property. Gafiron explained that the applicant recently purchased the property intending to tear doisTi the supcntnicture and re-use the existing footings and slab foundation. A lot area and setback variance is required to replace the 4-stall garage in the substandard side setback abutting the Dakota Rail comdor. Gaffron continued that the house will be enlarged to incorporate a second story including a “bonus room" abose the garage, which adds a second level of encroachment to the side setback. Gaffron pointed out that, from sUfT s perspective, there is little hardship to support the side setback swance. since the garage could become 3 sulls instead of 4. He noted that the house garage could also be rwonfigured to pros idc for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, while meeting the 30* setback. He added that the applicant had prosided a second survey, w hich indicates a proposed house garage location, which meets the 30' setback, should the side >wJ be denied. For zoning purposes. Gaffron pointed out that the publicly used and maintained cul-de-sac cxistmg upon the comer of the property had been deleted from the lot area calculation Therefore, a line 10' from Jie edge of the pawment of this portion of the public road' must be used as the front property line for front setback determination. Although there is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of the cul-de- sac. the City Engineer m his 1999 County Road 15 Traffic Study suggested that a future method to make 15 safer would be to eliminate the Heritage 15 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brown Road South across the rail comdor. Gaffron noted that such a rerouting would eliminate the cul-de-sac and hence the setback issue. Vk hilc t^ exiting and proposed house appear to be setback approximately 39* from the wetland. Gallron acloiowledged that the wetland has not been formally delineated. He felt it would be appropnate to have the applicant get the wetland boundary delineated poor to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the required setback. C^ffron reported that the current residence per the original plan is considered as a 4-bedroom home and the existing septic system has served it well, but its actual design capacity is unclear based on the tack of information from the dratnfield replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a conforming system J^hich has been functioning well under the pnor owner's usage pad.m Gaffron maintained that It IS unlikely the property contains an altemaie site meeting setback requirements from lot lines structures, wells and wetlands. While it might be reasonable to allow the new structure to be reconnected to the existing septic system for the time being, the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant PAGE 14 of 29 ,J