Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The current application proposes completely replacing the existing house with a new structure in <br /> approximately the same location and with a similar footprint. The new home with a full story above the <br /> garage will increase the livability of the property while not adding to the hardcover or to the structural <br /> coverage percentage. Structural coverage for the lot is well below. The proposed hardcover is 17.5 <br /> percent,which will all be located in the 0-75 foot zone except for a small portion of the driveway. <br /> The proposed street setback for the house is 20 to 22 feet,with an entry porch proposed to be located 18.1 <br /> feet to the street. The lake setback is proposed at 34.8 feet,which is greater than the 32-foot lake setback <br /> for the existing home. No average lakeshore setback is necessary since the existing house to the south has <br /> a deck that is closer to the lake than any parts of this house would be. <br /> The size,shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake make it impossible to build on the property <br /> without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original construction of a home on the lot and <br /> an additional variance was granted in 1981 to allow construction of the existing attached garage. In 1991, <br /> a variance was granted for the existing second-story deck located on the lake side of the house. The <br /> applicants are not proposing a deck as part of the new home application but a grade-level patio that is <br /> similar to the existing patio is proposed. <br /> The close proximity to the lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street is clearly a function <br /> of the lack of lot depth from the street to the lake.This factor is shared by the two adjacent homes to the <br /> immediate south. The Planning Commission should consider whether there is a need to provide <br /> screening from the lake for the new residence due to the limited lake setback. <br /> Staff would note that the house across the street sits significantly higher than the applicants' house so that <br /> the lake views enjoyed by that off-lake owner will be minimally affected. Gaffron indicated he is not sure <br /> whether the large trees will need to be removed. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If the Planning Commission determines that the <br /> practical difficulties test is met,then a recommendation for approval would be in order. <br /> Landgraver asked if the house is being elevated to get out of the water. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> Schoenzeit noted this is a total rebuild. <br /> Gaffron stated it is a tear down but they will not be utilizing the existing foundation. Gaffron noted the <br /> home will not have a basement. In an effort to meet the intent of the code,the applicants are proposing <br /> essentially the same footprint. <br /> Leskinen stated it is basically being rebuilt in kind but higher. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicants are also proposing to add a second story to the garage. <br /> Thiesse noted both of the trees are shown on the applicants' plans as staying. Thiesse asked whether <br /> those trees can be removed without a variance. <br /> Gaffron indicated the applicants would need to get permission from the City but it would not require a <br /> variance. Gaffron stated it is likely those trees would need to be replaced if they are removed. <br /> Page 24 of 43 <br />