Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lYIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONfMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth reviewed direction given by the Planning Commission in previous meetings advising that structural coverage be minimized in order to meet the code. The setback variances were to be reduced. It was also requested that no new addition be permitted to the east so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the northeast. A 6' expansion is proposed on the east side. The variances required in the application are for setbacks, hardcover in the 250'-500' setback area and lot area. Mabusth said the proposal involves a 2-story residence with the attached garage. The residence structure would be 50' from the Bayside right-of-way with the covered deck at 45' setback. The garage, which encroached Landmark Drive, will be removed. The 15' setback from the west lot line would satisfy the agreement with the Landmark Homeowners Association. The City requires a 50' setback. A 3' setback variance would be required from the north side lot line. 15% structural coverage is allowed and is proposed at 14.3%. There is a hardcover allowance of 30% in the 75-250' setback a.TJ.d is proposed at 48.2% for a 18.2% excess. Smith asked what changes were made to the variance requests from the earlier proposal. Mabusth explained that there is now an increase in the lot area reducing hardcover and structural coverage excesses. Setback variances would be required for the expanded second story. Smith said the proposal for 4 bedrooms, a den, and a porch was still excessive in her viewpoint. The applicant had no additional comments but was asked about the possible loss of the maples trees on the east side. Stephens said there would be some loss of the maple trees but was unsure how healthy one of the trees is. He noted that there would be a loss of2 oak trees to the south. There were no public comments. Hawn said she was concerned with the tear down of homes on substandard lots and the rebuilding of homes larger than intended for a particular zoning area. She noted that the codes were present to ensure the proper size homes for a lot size. She was not in favor of a second story expansion with the current foundation problem. Peterson opined that approving the side and rear setbacks created a problem. Smith said with proposals of rebuilding on new foundations, the City was more critical and stringent in applying the codes. 5