03/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued) even with a decreased rear lot line setback. She indicated that the proposed elevations of the new structure on the property are taken from a previous application for new construction and have been reduced to fit on the lot. Chaput pointed out that the topography of the applicant's property is much flatter than the lot where this particular home was built, therefore, it would exceed the height limitations on this lot. Chaput referred to the engineer's comments and indicated that a culvert exists under the current home. Since the culvert must be located on a survey, if a new home is to be built on the property, the culvert must be relocated along the property line. In addition, a 10' drainage and utility easement would be required over the culvert. Chaput identified 10 issues for consideration and stated that staff recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on the lot, with the 5 conditions cited in the staff memo dated March 4, 2003. Chair Smith recommended that the front setback be maintained at the current 48' from the OHWL. She asked if the applicant had a potential buyer. Lanning felt that, due to height limitations, she would like to keep the lakeside variance. She indicated that the lot has proven very difficult to redevelop, and turned into a money pit having to contend with the culvert, hydrant, and size restraints. Denny Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, voiced his reservations with regard to new structure encroaching further into the average lakeshore setback. He argued that the 2 1/2 story height limitation failed to go far enough to protect his views. If the home were closer to the lake and 2 1/2 stories tall, his views would be obscured. He felt it would be great to see a new home on this property,but at what cost. Paul Rahman, 3335 Crystal Bay Road, pointed out that, not only centering the home on the lot would change his views, but also the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and height allowance. He was curious how the height and side yard setbacks would affect neighbor's views, in an otherwise, mostly single story neighborhood. Berg stated that by adjusting the home on the lot to meet side setbacks,both neighbors' views would be affected. While Rahn could support allowing more space for the driveway, he had difficulty using the submitted three story elevations that would never fly on a flat lot such as this. Since the Commission was not talking about a specific design, he felt the submittals and pictures were deceiving and should not be part of the proposal. He maintained that the Commission was merely considering a footprint which meets height requirements. PAGE 12 of 24