Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 18,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Oakden stated the applicant would like to reconstruct a new single-family home on this site and is <br /> requesting the following: <br /> 1. A lot width variance. <br /> 2. A lake yard setback variance. <br /> 3. An average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> 4. A side yard setback to allow increased building mass within 8.8 feet of the lot line where a <br /> 10-foot setback is required. <br /> 5. A variance to permit crowding of the principal structure to allow a 1.5 foot setback between <br /> the principal and accessory structure. <br /> Oakden stated according to the survey,the hashed areas are the portions that are changing versus what is <br /> existing. The applicants are working to construct the home on the same footprint and to reuse the <br /> foundation of the existing home but are proposing to replace an existing lakeside deck with an enclosed <br /> roofed screen porch. This would create additional volume and mass in the average lakeshore setback and <br /> within the 75-foot lake yard setback. <br /> Further,the applicants are requesting a side yard setback to increase the volume of the portion of the <br /> home 8.8 feet from the west lot line to raise the roofline. The addition to the home next to the existing <br /> detached garage as proposed results in an increase in the massing and the applicant is requesting a <br /> variance to be closer than the required 10-foot separation between buildings. <br /> The property meets the lot area but is only107 to 106 feet wide where 140 feet is required. All structural <br /> and hardcover requirements are met. <br /> Oakden indicated the black line on the survey outlines the existing roofline and the yellow reflects the <br /> proposed roofline. If the roofs of the two structures were combined,that would negate the need for a <br /> variance. <br /> Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot shape, size and location of the home with <br /> respect to the shoreline which support the granting of reasonable variances. The Planning Commission <br /> should discuss whether a variance for the crowding of buildings is appropriate. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. <br /> The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. <br /> Michael Smith,Applicant, stated the house was constructed in 1952 and has low ceilings. Smith <br /> indicated they considered remodeling the house until it became apparent it was not feasible due to the <br /> cost. Smith stated they would like to use the same foundation and construct a 3,900 to 4,000 square foot <br /> house,which is smaller than what currently is on the property. <br /> Smith noted Mr. Hendel is out of the country currently and is unable to attend tonight's meeting but that <br /> he will try to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. <br /> Page 4 of 21 <br />