10/20/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 20, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9) #03-2953 RAYMOND AND NYLENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75'- 250' zone. 4. Approval of the conditional use permit in order to remove a failing retaining wall and re-grade the lakeshore yard as proposed, maintaining a 3:1 or less side slope where the retaining walls will be eliminated. 5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. Should the Planning Commission approve the request as proposed, Foth stated that Planning Staff would recommend submittal of a more detailed drainage and grading plan indicating one-foot contours and drainage arrows in order for Engineer review. Mr. Cronin asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the staff recommendations with regard to the side setback and hardcover variance requests. He pointed out that the side yard setbacks for the neighborhood are substandard based on the size of the lots; therefore, he recommended the %2 acre standard which more accurately depicts the character of the neighborhood apply. Based on a 2 acre minimum lot, it is difficult to force a .7 acre parcel to fit these requirements. Cronin asked what the reasonable use of this site would be. He pointed out that the noise from County Road 15 encouraged the current design which asks for a mere 6" variance on either side of the home. Chair Smith asked about the hardcover calculations. Cronin stated that the applicants would be removing the entire 775 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone or 12.8%, coupled with driveway removals, this reduces the excess hardcover by Y2. He pointed out that the applicants are proposing to build over existing hardcover and reduce the overall hardcover on the site. Although the applicants share a driveway, and must maintain some limited parking since there is no parking along County Road 15, they have agreed to reduce the driveway by half. While Chair Smith noted the Commission could support lot area and lot width variances, as well as, the conditional use permit for regrading, she felt there was an opportunity to stay within conformance and eliminate the need for a side yard setback variance. Mabusth asked if the proposal imposed a mere 6"to the side yard setback. She asked if the neighboring property on the curve was a remodel or rebuild. Gaffron explained that, although the project next door started out as a remodel, the further the neighbors got into the remodel, the more that needed to be torn out, which virtually turned the project into a total rebuild that was required to meet the setbacks. Page 17 of 29