08-19-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUI.Y 15, 1906 (#7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) Mabusth reported liiat the application was for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to reconstruct a new residence after razing the existing residence There is a 20' encroachment by the existing house into the average lakeshore setback and is proposed at 25’ with an upper level screen porch There is a minor excess of hardcover in the 75-250* zone resulting from hardcover in landscaping underlaid with plastic The 7% excess in hardcover in the 250-500% zone results from the driveway, turnaround, and landscaping underlaid with plastic. Mabusth said she has received 3 letters from neighbors voicing concerns with turther visual impact with the mass of the house and the leapfrogging of construction closer to lake The neighbors would like to see the home kept behind the average lakeshore setback. The Hurd’s architect, Mr. Combs, said the original structure has been remodeled 4 or 5 times. The existing foundation is unable to support further remodeling. Combs presented drawings to show the relationship of the proposed home to the neighboring homes and the site lines Combs said the garage, parking, and play area, which is highly used, will be pulled into the lot to create a safer play area and enable the residents to drive out onto Casco Point Road The plan calls for the use of the existing building site Combs said the applicants were sensitive to the average lakeshore setback and impacting of any views by maintaining this building site and angling of the home to better the impact The home is also located in the mid-section of the lot so as not to infringe on the views Combs said most existing views are obstructed by trees Combs superimposed a drawnng of the proposal over the existing to show that the new residence would be located in the same sweep line He said it was also his intent to work within the existing topography. Peterson said the concern is that the proposed structure gives a larger appearance to the neighbors He noted that the 675 s f hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback and 7.3% in the 250-500' setback is minor when comparing the size of the home to the lot. Mabusth a.sked is there a need to grant a hardcover variance'^ Peterson added that with the razing of the existing home, the Commission views the proposal as new construction. Council Member Kelley asked the Commission to review the boat house on the property. Peterson acknowledged with new construction, a boat house may not be allowed. This then results in the existing boat house becoming an issue The code calls for an existing boat house repair to be limited to board by board maintenance Peterson noted that this particular boat house was in excellent condition