04-20-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION » w<r% »-*%»% •• • . .. iviLi^iiiHVJ 1 uuL^LJ KJi'^ iViruwii I (n2 - ^2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would be best serv ’ed bv a multi-familv unit from a development standpoint. Smith asked if the road outlot was taken into consideration for the 22% structural coveraue. Gaflron said the road outlot would not be considered part of the lot area. Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he could reduce the size Beru asked what stvle of buildinu was beinu proposed. Waade said the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to be limited to 32 x40' to meet the standard. Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlots would be required unless the front lot line was changed. There would be no change to the credit tor ponding. Smith asked for Waade's comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family residence to miticate some variances Waade said he would need to know what he would be allowed on the property. Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit towards the extra 50®/o lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage was reduced. Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f footprint. Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the front lot^ack lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. 1