08-17-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 17, 2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. other ordinances and other situations, so he can very clearly tell that Staff has made the right recommendation in requesting a redesign for a footprint of 2,000 feet or less. Libby agrees with Staff on this for the same reasons as Erickson. Gettman asked to clarify if the current square footage of the structures that are there are actually larger than what they are proposing. Curtis answered no, she doesn't believe so. Gettman said maybe he is misunderstanding and thought the existing hardcover is 3,865. Curtis said the 3,865 is not the structure. The existing structure is 1,698, although the hardcover is larger by about 20 square feet. She said the configuration with the garage, noting the dark areas they are looking at on the page are the bituminous, so it is further back than the proposed plan, it pulls the garage back, noting a detached area and parking area on the page, and said now what is proposed is a house filling that area. Gettman asked to see the aerial view of the neighborhood and asked if they would be consolidating the two separate structures on the existing lot. Curtis answered yes and it would be slightly larger. Gettman asked if the overall, including the driveway and everything else in between would end up reducing it by about 20 square feet. Curtis answered yes. Ressler noted he's looking at the setbacks and is trying to monitor Staff recommendation because they like to take a lot of consideration into that as the Staff knows more about the rules than probably anyone. He said the front street setback of 30 feet required, and noted the existing is 32.8 feet and asked if the application was proposing further encroaching towards the street right now. Cmtis said the home will conform and the porch will be in the front setback by four feet or so, but the guideline the Applicant used, that was discussed, was the average setback. They did move into that front setback but are sticking with the average lakeshore setback - although they're not subject to it - as it is more consistent with the neighborhood sightlines. Ressler asked if in the Staff feedback the main and only disagreement was over stmcture because they're improving hardcover and it seems amicable with what they're doing with the setbacks. Curtis answered yes, in comparing the properties along the street, this lot does not have the benefit of the road area, noting if this lot were to go to the lake (minus the road area), they would be nearly conforming with their structural coverage proposed but because the platted right-of-way comes so deep into the property it does not conform. The structure is the Staff's hang-up. Ressler noted the road comes into the discussion on every one of these applications. He said he tends to agree with Staff based on this, he thinks the clarification Curtis just provided is exactly how he looks at it. Page 4 of 29