Laserfiche WebLink
^^NUTESOFTI^E <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19.2001 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />((NII-2730 Ace Properties, Cootlnued) <br />where no hardcover or structure is allowed, and a variance to permit greater than 2S percent hardcover <br />in the 75-250’ of the lakeshore. The Applicants are proposing 19.5 percent hardcover within the 0-75' <br />setback where 37.9 percent currently exists and are proposing 60 percent hardcover within the <br />75-250’ setback. Currently there is 72.5 percent hardcover within this setback area. <br />Variances are also required to permit encroachment into the 10-foot side/rear >’ard setbacks, and to <br />permit the existing foundation and building to be located 4.2 feet from the side property line and 19.2 <br />feet to the rear lot line. The proposed setbacks are existing for the concrete storage building that would <br />remain on the propert>. The Applicants are proposing to have two full stories constructed above the <br />concrete storage building that would expand the building envelope within all required setbacks. <br />The Applicants arc also requesting variances to permit structural lot coverage in e.xcess of 1,500 square <br />feet. The Zoning Ordinance permits lot coverage of up to 1.500 square feet for lots under 10,000 <br />square feet of area. The proposed house is 1,895 square feet. A variance is also being requested to <br />permit a two foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback as well as variances to permit <br />e.xpansion to the structure located within 10 feet of an adjacent structure on an adjacent property <br />Weinberger stated the City in 1971 approved variances to permit a 20' by 24' detached concrete <br />storage building located 10 feet behind the existing house. The City issued a building permit a few <br />months later for a 24’ by 40' concrete attached building. This is the e.xisting building that is proposed <br />to remain on the property and used as foundation for the back half of the new house. Technically the <br />building was not approved by a variance but a building pennit was issued for the structure. <br />Weinberger noted the Applicant has been lequested to submit a site grading and drainage plan for <br />Staff review <br />Staff is recommending a reduction in the amount of structural coverage on the lot to not encroach into <br />the side yard setbacks, but is recommending approval of the variances to lot area and lot width as well <br />as rear setback and hardcover variances <br />Palm indicated he has nothing to add to Staff s report. <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Hawn stated in her opinion the amount of structural coverage proposed for this lot is e.xcessive, noting <br />this is basically new construction. Hawn stated she does not see a reason to grant a variance to the <br />structural coverage in the amount proposed, noting this would be a ver> large structure on a very small <br />lot. <br />Palm stated he has spoken with both adjoining neighbors regarding this project who have signed a letter <br />indicating their support of this project. Palm stated there are also two or three other houses within this <br />neighborhood that are of similar size located on a small lot. <br />Palm stated their intent is to nanow the old foundation by 20 feet, which leaves them pretty close to the <br />ten foot setback, with only the rear portion of the foundation remaining. <br />PAGES