Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner commented that he struggles to come outside of the setbacks that are in place. He understands it <br /> is fairly minimal and the practical application,but wonders if there is another way to accommodate it. He <br /> asked if what was being proposed is a ramp from the garage into the home. <br /> Mr. Patrick Jacobson, Lake Country Builders, said Kirchner was correct. Referencing the plan,he said the <br /> existing stairs are at the bottom left which go down. To make it work with a code-compliant landing,they <br /> would be extending that. They tried to minimize the impact to the setback by extending the wall that was <br /> existing in the setback currently and minimizing that by the length for a landing which is to code. <br /> Kirchner noted Orono has a tradition/history of abiding to the existing setbacks and he struggles to extend <br /> this one even though it comes back just a slight bit from the existing house. <br /> Bollis said he struggles with the application,too. He stated most builders would be asking for the entire <br /> garage wall to be extended into the setback like the existing house, so he understands that concession has <br /> been made. He sees the intent is only to put it where it has to be, and he could vote for it. <br /> Gettman had no additional feedback. <br /> Ressler noted whenever someone is beyond the scope of what is allowable for the building envelopes,the <br /> Commission generally looks for an improvement of an Applicant's position. He recognizes the mitigants <br /> being presented. With hardcover reduction,the structure is one of the most difficult ones to worsen. It <br /> does not appear, based on the drawings,the 1.2 number would put something out of compliance. If the 1.2 <br /> inches could be brought in and stay within the current setback, he would be much more agreeable. <br /> Mr. Rocca said he does not think it is two inches; it is two feet by six feet. <br /> Ressler stated it is 5.7 feet existing versus 5.8 feet proposed. <br /> Oakden said 5.7 is for the closest point of the existing house.The proposed encroachment would be 5.8, <br /> so it is 1.2 inches farther away from the property line compared to the closest point on the existing home. <br /> Ressler asked Oakden if it improved the position. <br /> Oakden indicated that it was improving it. <br /> Ressler noted he was reading it backwards. <br /> Mr. Jacobson said the only reason that is the case is because the lot line is not perfectly parallel to the <br /> existing house. He stated that is the only stairway down to the basement which is where the mechanicals <br /> are. If the landing is not added, it would be abandoning a stairway. <br /> Ressler stated all he was looking for is knowing that the Planning Commission is improving the position. <br /> He is in support of the application based on the information. <br /> Bollis asked how the existing stairway is accessed currently and asked if it was an exterior door. <br /> Mr. Rocca said, as someone comes up the stairway from the basement,there is a landing and then a 90- <br /> degree turn,three more steps, a 90-degree turn, and four more steps into the house. They would be raising <br /> Page 4 of 19 <br />