Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 19,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission would like to work with the applicant. Schoenzeit <br /> asked if a variance is granted to the cul-de-sac,what the updated buildable area would be. <br /> Curtis stated if the house is moved further back and complies with the rear setback and bluff setback, he <br /> would be left with a 29-foot depth. <br /> Gaffron stated they calculated it at approximately 3,500 or 3,700 square feet but that it would be in a <br /> strange configuration. Gaffron illustrated on E�chibit L2 that if the 30-foot setback from the west is <br /> extended 20 feet closer to the road to meet a 30-foot or a 25-foot setback, it would leave an area of <br /> roughly 3,700 square feet. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it appears that a building would fit into that area. <br /> Stavig noted they are requesting a 25-foot setback in the front and that the 1,500 square feet would also <br /> include a garage. <br /> Schoenzeit commented there appears to be a building envelope available to the applicant that would meet <br /> the bluff setbacks. <br /> Stavig stated the house would be 700 to 800 square feet because the 1,500 square feet would also include <br /> a garage. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the building envelope would be 3,700 square feet if there is a variance to the cul-de-sac. <br /> Thiesse commented a 1,500 square foot house would be out of character for the neighborhood and noted <br /> that this lot was originally developed and approved for construction. Thiesse stated Exhibit Ll shows that <br /> the applicant is being penalized by the 40 percent. Thiesse noted it is an established tree line bluff. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff is going to take the lower point of the 50-foot segment that is less than 18 percent <br /> versus one that is over 18 percent. The top of the bluff is at 978',which is below the driveway. You have <br /> steeper slopes as you go closer to the shoreline and then a flat area. The bottom of the bluff is down at the <br /> shoreline and not 20 or 30 feet in where it is fairly flat. Gaffron stated the survey shows that the top of <br /> the bluff pretty much follows the lakeside of the driveway bed and that in his opinion the applicant is not <br /> being penalized. <br /> Thiesse commented this is a unique situation and asked if any of the catastrophic bluff failures were in a <br /> well defined mature tree bluff or a graded area. <br /> Gaffron stated in one case there was a catastrophic failure that happened on the property next door first <br /> and then they constructed retaining walls. In that case the house was required to be constructed 30 feet <br /> from the bluff, so it did not contribute to that bluff failure. Most of the failures have been rebuilt <br /> residences on bluffs. There was also a catastrophic failure on the north side of Long Lake approximately <br /> seven or eight years ago where there was an existing house that was rebuilt using the same footprint. <br /> Gaffron noted there is no existing footprint in this situation. <br /> Thiesse stated the old roadbed means something to him, and asked if the applicant hires an engineer that <br /> conducts a global stability check,whether that would help. <br /> Page <br /> 11 <br />