Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> from the west side,which is a discrepancy that will need to be corrected. Sharratt indicated they would <br /> be willing to have the 10-foot setback on the west side since that is what the neighbor would prefer. <br /> Sharratt stated in addition,they have resolved the existing garage setback issue and they are now in <br /> excess of the 30 feet required on the street side and 10 feet on the east side. The neighbor would prefer it <br /> to be shifted to the west, which can be done. Sharratt noted Staffs report states the lot on the street side is <br /> 50 feet wide but it is approximately 40 feet wide. Due to the narrowness of the lot,they will need to be <br /> over one of the setbacks no matter what in order to have a two-car garage. <br /> The Musgjerds would like to have an outdoor space at the main level,which is what the deck is for. The <br /> deck has been designed up on brackets so there are no posts in the ground. Sharratt stated he realizes the <br /> deck would still be considered structure but that they are attempting to minimize the impact to the setback <br /> on the alley side. They are also in complete conformance with the lakeside setback. <br /> As far as the hardcover is concerned,the existing hardcover on the lot is at 42.8 percent in the 75-250 foot <br /> zone,which would be 28 percent under the new ordinance. The applicants are proposing 37 percent <br /> hardcover under the current regulations,which would be 24.2 percent under the new hardcover ordinance. <br /> Sharratt indicated they attempted to keep the mass of the house low by designing the roof in this fashion. <br /> Landgraver noted the land drops down significantly and asked how the grading would change since the <br /> neighbor to the east is up higher and the alley is down low. If there are already erosion problems in the <br /> alley,there is a further potential impact from the house. <br /> Sharratt indicated they are basically taking the existing retaining wall on the east side and for the most <br /> part eliminating that. They are also proposing to raise the basement floor level starting with the existing <br /> grade and to raise the ceiling height in the basement by two and a half to three feet. Sharratt indicated <br /> they will also be eliminating the retaining wall on the east side. On the west side against the alley,there <br /> will be a retaining wall that goes to a maximum height of four feet and then dissipate. Sharratt indicated <br /> they are basically taking the retaining wall from the east side and placing it on the west side. <br /> Schoenzeit asked where the existing grade is. <br /> Sharratt pointed out the location of the existing grade on the overhead. The existing grade is at the top of <br /> the driveway and not the bottom. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what the total height of the building is. <br /> Sharratt stated the building is within the City's height restrictions. <br /> Levang asked why the deck cannot be reduced five feet so it fits without encroaching into the setback. <br /> Sharratt stated if the deck were reduced any further, it would become a nonfunctional deck. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the deck could be put on the backside of the house rather than encroaching into <br /> the setback. <br /> Curtis noted the patio is currently in that area. <br /> Page 7 <br />