Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road,Variance, Public <br /> Hearing-continued) <br /> Rahn summarized the applicant's proposal to tear down the existing 1 %2 story house off of the <br /> foundation and replace it with a single story house is in reality not a rebuild but new construction. <br /> And as such, compliance with setbacks is a prominent goal of the Planning Commission. <br /> Gaffron interjected that the ratio of volume of new construction to existing in this case is 90%new <br /> construction, therefore from staffs' perspective there is no justification for the hardships as the <br /> application is actually a total rebuild. <br /> Chair Mabusth added that there is no data to confirm that the existing foundation is acceptable. <br /> Gaffron stated that engineering data had not been requested yet but would do so when the application <br /> becomes more viable. <br /> Chair Mabusth stated the setback variances could not be approved when there are other structural <br /> building options for the lot. She recommended the application be tabled to allow the applicants an <br /> opportunity to consider revisions. <br /> Mr. Anderson questioned if acquiring/trading for 30' of property to the west sideyard to help enlarge <br /> the building envelope would benefit the application. Gaffron responded that additional side property <br /> would solve the side yard setback problem, and potentially could clean up the property issue across <br /> the road from the subject property. However, the property to west(which is less than 2.0 acres) <br /> would become smaller, though the aggregate property between the two properties would remain the <br /> same. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to indicate their position of potentially increasing a <br /> non-conforming lot size while solving a property/road right-of-way issue to the north side of the <br /> property. <br /> Rahn pointed out it is key to know what would be left of the neighboring property and if setbacks <br /> would be compliant after a loss of 30'. It was a consensus that acquiring 30' would allow the <br /> proposed application to meet sideyard setbacks as long as the westerly property remnant conformed <br /> to the 30' sideyard setback, too. <br /> Gaffron asked the Planning Commission for its recommendation about the minimal encroachment of <br /> the existing structure within the 50' front yard setback. It was a consensus to recommend the <br /> applicant remove the old foundation under the existing screened porch. Gaffron indicated then the <br /> application,without variance requests, would potentially meet the new administrative approval <br /> ordinance for lot area and width approval standards. <br /> Mrs. Anderson asked for the procedure if they were not able to acquire additional property. <br /> She was advised the application then would need to return to the Planning Commission with an <br /> option within the buildable envelope and meet setback standards. Leslie emphasized that given the <br /> volume of new construction the property would need to meet setbacks. Gaffron explained that any <br /> construction beyond the existing walls and roofline would require a variance, including adding a 2nd <br /> story. Chair Mabusth summarized that with the proposed property addition of 30', the application <br /> would meet setback standards and would not have to return to the Planning Commission. <br /> Page 14 of 22 <br />