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