05/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING Monday,May 21,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. required; 2. Lot width variance to allow construction on a lot of 99' defined width and 60' functional width where 200 feet is required; 3. Side setback variance to allow west side setback of 10 feet where 30 feet is required; 4. Side setback variance to allow an east side setback of 10.4 feet where 30 feet is required; 5. Street setback variance to allow street setback of 23.5 feet where 50 feet is required; 6. Lakeshore setback variance to allow lakeshore setback of 493 feet where 100 feet is required; 7. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow average setback encroachment of 30 feet where no encroachment is allowed; 8. 0-75 foot hardcover variance to allow 14.2 percent hardcover where no hardcover is normally allowed; 9. 75-250 foot hardcover variance to allow 34.2 percent hardcover where only 25 percent is normally allowed; 10. Variance to allow structure within Bluff Impact Zone where no structure is normally allowed; 11. CUP and variance required for 0-75 foot grading/filling/excavating in excess of 10 cubic yards. Gaffron noted the grading plan incorporates two revisions. The first is that the plan no longer attempts to create a swale along the west lot line but allows drainage to flow directly to the neighboring property. The proposal also includes a system of gutters so that all roof runoff will be directed to a series of rain gardens tucked into the hill southeast of the house. Additionally,a swale for infiltration near the shoreline has been added,which likely will help to manage runoff from the City's storm sewer that discharges along the east property boundary. The applicants are proposing to remove two of the three large oak trees in the 0-75 foot zone. The 22" � oak alongside the existing house but on the neighbor's property apparently has already extended roots in the foundation wall of the existing house. The continued viability of this tree with the proposed house 10 feet away is questionable. Removal of this tree is anticipated because its branches extend significantly into the applicanYs property. There has been no discussion with Staff as to replacement of this tree with one or more trees on either property. In addition, Staff has a concern that the 34"oak just south of the house is also recommended by the applicant's consultant to be removed as a preemptive measure based on its proximity to the proposed house and all the activity associated with the new construction. The Planning Commission had asked the applicant to obtain professional advice as to how to save tliis tree, and the recommendation is to remove the tree. Page 12