Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 19,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the concerns is that the foundation was originally constructed in 1981 and may not <br /> support a second story. The applicant has been asked to provide certification from a structural engineer <br /> that the foundation will support a second story but that information has yet to be submitted. <br /> The applicant has indicated they have removed a small shed from the property and at this time do not plan <br /> to remove the garage, patio, deck, or driveway. The garage, deck, and driveway appear to constitute legal <br /> nonconforming hardcover and/or structure. In other similar situations,the City has encouraged the <br /> owners to consider building tuck-under garages and removing the lengthy driveways and backyard <br /> detached garages that are near the creek. In this case, the existing home is barely larger than a typical <br /> tuck-under garage and the second story addition may be more appropriate than a total tear-down/rebuild <br /> that likely would result in a larger footprint. Gaffron stated one of the issues involved in this situation is <br /> that the survey indicates the neighboring home to the immediate west is encroaching on the applicants' <br /> property by as much as 1.7 feet. <br /> Gaffron noted the property owner across the road to the north has submitted comments in opposition to <br /> the variances that is included in the Planning Commission's packets. The neighbor has expressed <br /> concerns regarding the house being too close to the power lines and the impacts a second story blocking <br /> their lake view. Gaffron noted City Code does not protect the views of that neighbor. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variances for addition of a second story on <br /> the basis that hardcover and structural lot coverage will not increase, the second story will maintain the <br /> existing first story setbacks, and the proposed addition will not be out of character with other homes in the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if this house has an average lakeshore setback. <br /> Gaffron indicated it does and that it meets the average lakeshore setback. The detached garage does not <br /> meet the average Lakeshore setback. <br /> Thiesse asked if it should be conforming. <br /> Gaffron stated since it is existing, it is not an issue for consideration. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the issue is whether the second story encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and <br /> impacts the neighbors' views, which it does not appear to do. <br /> Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues for consideration outlined in Staffs <br /> report. <br /> Gaffron stated any approval should be subject to the following conditions: <br /> 1. Prior to Council review,the applicants shall provide a corrected survey showing the correct lot <br /> dimensions and showing the accurately depicted average lakeshore setback line. The applicant <br /> should also provide corrected hardcover calculations to confirm to Staff's calculations. <br /> 2. The approval is based on the preliminary floor plans and elevation view submitted, which depict a <br /> second-story home of approximately 26 feet in peak height. Gaffron noted the existing garage <br /> floor is at the 931.5 floodplain elevation and the main floor of the house is at 933.5,which is two <br /> Page 25 of 31 <br />