Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION <br />iVliLL^iiiNU JTLCjLU UlS AVlrUvCn lO. i>>0 <br />(#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) <br />Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it <br />would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. <br />The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would <br />be best served bv a multi-family unit from a development standpoint. <br />Smith asked if the road outlet was taken into consideration for the 22% structural <br />coverage. Gaffron said the road outlet would not be considered part of the lot area. <br />Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he <br />could reduce the size. Berg asked what style cf building was being proposed. Waade said <br />the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to <br />be limited to 32'x40' to meet the standard. <br />Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked <br />whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. <br />Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the <br />lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlets would be required unless the front lot <br />line was changed. There would be no change to the credit for ponding. <br />Smith asked for Waade ’s comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family <br />residence to mitigate some variances. Waade said he would need to know what he would <br />be allowed on the property. <br />Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt <br />some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway <br />access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could <br />be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit <br />towards the extra 50% lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the <br />structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. <br />Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage w'as reduced. <br />Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced <br />to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f footprint. <br />Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the <br />front lot/back lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. <br />Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex.