Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 <br />• _ <br />( #7 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley Continued) <br />The side setback is proposed at 3' where 10' is required by code. The reason for this <br />setback variance is twofold: 1) to add to the drainage by extension of the garage wall to <br />channel drainage past the house, and 2) there are mature trees on the other side. It was <br />noted that there is a 30' setback required for the garage doors facing the street. <br />A lot coverage variance is required. The existing structures are 16.8 %, or 1401 s.f, <br />where 15% is allowed. The proposal is for 19.7 %, or 1646 s.f. Gaflron noted that the <br />zoning allows for 1500 s.f regardless of the lot size. Calculations have not been done for <br />the conceptual new house and may be found to be less than the existing lot coverage. <br />There will be no change in the hardcover in the 0 -75' setback. Existing hardcover is at <br />23.3 %, which includes the house and deck. The hardcover in the 75 -250' setback is at <br />38.1 %, proposed at 40.8 %, where 25% is allowed. <br />Gaffron reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal. By channeling the <br />drainage from the garage roof and driveway, Cook was said to feel this would protect the <br />house. Drainage from the street currently travels along a 4 -house area. Gaff on said <br />drainage is a concern in the neighborhood, and curb and gutter and retention pond are <br />future issues to be considered. <br />• Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the relation of the garage and house, the need <br />for 3- stories, and the view from the lake from a height standpoint at about 50' from lowest <br />to highest points. Gaffron noted that a typical 2 -story walkout would present a height <br />range of 42 -45'. Lindquist commented that the problem with the garage was the need to <br />go down 2 stories. <br />• <br />Architect Susanka raised the issue of the "office space" being considered as part of the <br />garage. When the house is rebuilt in several years, the applicants would need to reside in <br />the garage. Susanka asked if there would be a problem with that as the applicants would <br />not invest heavily into the property if it was not allowed. She also asked about <br />requirements of the planned house in order to gauge what the City would allow. Susanka <br />said the upper story of the garage would have 5 -6' sidewalls to allow a person to stand in <br />it but to have minimal impact. <br />13 <br />