08-19-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15, 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 23 consider purchasing the property. The Council referred the matter to the Park Commission and there is no further action indicated in the City’s records. Gaffron continued that in 1978, the City processed a formal variance request by Arthur Heintz requesting lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. That application was denied per the findings of Resolution No. 885 dated March 16, 1978. Within a week following the variance denial resolution, the City received a petition from three neighbors requesting abatement of a nuisance, specifically the garage that was in poor condition located on the property. The City followed up with approval of a hazardous building resolution on April 13, 1978. On that same date the Council denied the applicant the ability to construct a dock, noting that a variance would be required since City Code does not allow docks on a property without a principal structure. The dilapidated garage was eventually removed in 1981 and the lot has been vacant ever since. In 1983, a dock was being installed by owner Pfeffer and he was ordered to cease installation. Gaffron stated that the property currently exists as a Lot of Record and is located in the Shoreland District. He noted that if there was a house on the property currently, the owner could rebuild it in kind. In kind means exactly what exists in size, height, and location. A house has not been located on the property for at least 65 years. Buildability of lots is regulated under Orono Zoning Code Section 78-72. A lot meeting the criteria of 78-72(b)(1), which does not meet the requirements of the zoning chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if all other requirements of the underlying zoning district are met, including but not limited to required yards, setbacks, lot coverage by structures, hardcover, et cetera. Based on the survey provided and the house proposed, development of the property will not meet all pertinent zoning requirements and a variance application has been filed. In reviewing the site development parameters for this zone, Gaffron noted that it is apparent that this lot is substandard not only in relation to City Code since it would require 140 feet of width and an acre, but also as compared to the surrounding neighborhood. The existing lot is less than one-fourth of an acre and is 83 feet in defined width. Because this is a lakeshore lot, the width is measured parallel to the shoreline and not along the side street. No additional land is available to increase the size of the property. Other lots in the neighborhood average 1.01 acres and range from 0.56 acre to 1.79 acres. The City has generally denied lot area variances for vacant lots less than 10,000 square feet. Gaffron noted this lot is also subject to lakeshore setback. While no lake setback variance is requested at this time, in meeting the 75-foot lakeshore setback requirement, placement of even a small residence as proposed would require a substantial rear setback variance. The house is proposed to be located 12.9 feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. This results in a separation from the neighboring residence at 1555 Orchard Beach Place of approximately 40 feet. That neighboring home is directly uphill from the proposed house and drainage from that home naturally flows directly toward the proposed house. In addition, the proposed house would be located 25.4 feet from the side street lot line where a 35-foot setback is required. As proposed, the garage would be a tuck-under facing the street. The right-of-way of Orchard Beach Place is 60 feet in width and the paved road is approximately 18 to 20 feet from the lot line. The code requirement for detached garages is 30 feet. While the proposed tuck-under garage is not an accessory structure, the principle of maintaining adequate room and street separation on the property for parking will be somewhat compromised. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/19/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 07/15/2013