Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 20,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated she was at the site yesterday and was given access by the homeowner to the back yard up <br /> to the lake and up on the patio. Leskinen stated she is very much in favor of the small addition over the <br /> tear down since the original house is low to the ground and has a historic pump house. Leskinen noted <br /> the majority of the patio is already there but needs replacing with the exception of the little addition in <br /> front of the windows. Leskinen stated in her view this proposal is less impactful than what the teardown <br /> and rebuild would have been. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the landscaping changes look appropriate but that adding another two percent of <br /> structural coverage is an issue. Schoenzeit noted the house is big and cannot support the structural <br /> coverage portion of the request. <br /> Leskinen stated she perhaps misread the report but that she was thinking it was less structural coverage <br /> than what was approved for the teardown. Leskinen asked if the proposed structural coverage is less than <br /> what was previously approved. <br /> Mack stated the original approval reduced hardcover by roughly 700 square feet which is still the case <br /> with the new proposal. <br /> Curtis stated to her recollection there was not a structural coverage variance with the rebuild. <br /> Thiesse noted structural coverage is being reduced to 13.9 percent. Thiesse stated they kept the low <br /> profile of the house and that there is probably something lacking in the old house that requires the <br /> addition and that he would give them the benefit of the doubt. Thiesse stated the addition does not <br /> overpower the lot and that he would be willing to grant them the extra structural coverage since they own <br /> the lot across the street. <br /> Schoenzeit stated any other lot can easily hide two percent more structural coverage and questioned <br /> whether the limit should become 17 percent. Schoenzeit noted they have a 2,000 square foot footprint. <br /> Thiesse stated those are numbers that the applicants say reflect that they have done this instead of this and <br /> that they are proposing less than what was originally approved. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the house is torn down,whether they would have to go back to the 15 percent if 17 <br /> percent is approved now. <br /> Mack noted the applicants do not get to take advantage of what is on the other side of the roadway even <br /> though that s part of the land that they own. Mack stated as a result of that,there is some inhereynt <br /> practical difficulty in that. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there are likely other lots in the City that have land on the other side of the roadway. <br /> Thiesse stated the structural coverage number is no different than the 75-foot setback or hardcover but <br /> that it is a number that the City has not been willing to change in the past. <br /> Page 19 of 28 <br />