04-28-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for a 15' west side street setback for the garage, a 3-1/2' north side lot line setback, structu.tl coverage not to exceed 15%, setback of 5' from Bayside Road for covered porch, w .th the understanding that the existing foundation will be used with the exception of the east foundation wall, which would be replaced. The Building Official must confirm that e.xisting foundation, except for new support wall at east side, is to remain. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith, due to excess structure. Motion approved. (#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 HIGmVOOD ROAD - VARLANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RE NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:40-7:50 P.iM. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailin’ were noted, Stuart Hoarn represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the original application has been revised. The street setback remains the same as originally proposed. The west side lot setback, originally proposed at 6.8', has been revised to 9.5', where 10 ’ is required. The separation of the neighbor’s garage to the house has been revised to IT, meeting required 10 ’ separation. The lakeshore setback is met by the proposal. The lot coverage has been revised to 1492 s.f meeting the 1500 s.f allowable. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback, oi.ginally proposed at 46%, has been revised to 40%. The code allows 25% in this zone. The lot area and lot width remain the same. Hoam commented that the applicant and he reviewed and followed the Planning Commission’s direction, which resulted in the amended proposal. Hoam asked that the application proceed on to the next Council meeting. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the driveway was of the size to allow a visitor's car to park. Hoam said the driveway would hold two cars with two cars inside relieving some of the street parking problem in the area. Commissioners commented that the proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood, and the applicant’s addressed the concerns previously brought forward by the Planning Commission. Hawn said she was concerned with precedent setting and noted the need for the Commission to discuss the overall codes and set specific guidelines.