08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. I#I3) W3-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:4S -9:11 P.M. Phillip Smith, the applicant, was present. GafTron explained that the applicant requests a lakeshorc setback variance to construct a sccc.nd story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover \ariances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75’ zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-stor>' configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. GafTron reported that staff recommends that a hardcover %ariance be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site Because the proposed additions arc mostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sidewalks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantly reduce the hardcover increases. Tlic total proposed hardcover increase in ti.c 75-250' zone is 601 s.f including the porch addition, small portio s of the garage addition, and sidewalks either side of the garage Existing 0-75' hardcover associated w ith the shed and patio totals 1375 s.f. A 1:2 removal would result in a reduction of 0-75’ hardcover of 300 s.f or from 2561 s.f (21.3%) to 22< 1 s.f (18 8"Ji) Staff suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 s.f) would be more consistent with past City approvals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the propeny. A net decrease in hardcover could be achieved by reducing the patio even further. Gaffron suggested the Plannin^ Commission consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 would create a belter long-tcnn situation, given the excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75-250’ zone may result in parking problems Gaffron stated that it should be noted that the runoff from the west half of the house, i.e. most of the 75-250’ zone, flows westward to a low area west of the main driveway serving the immediate neighborhood, rather than flow ing directly to the lake. If gutters which currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the cast, could be redirected to the w est, this w ouid reduce the impact of existing 0-75’ hardcover. Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75’ hardcover he would remove is the 100 s.f shed and 200 s.f of the 1300 $.f patio. He w ould prefer to not remove additional areas of patio, but also notes that driveway reductions are the only likely other area of removals, and because the road in front of the house is a private easement driveway, parking on it is problematic. He would prefer to net have to remove driveway areas. PAGE 20 of 37