10-12-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Curtis said she believes it’s included in the packet, and the neighbor noted that they wished to have gutters/drainage looked at because of the tight setback. They said the renovated outbuilding looks nice and the only concern is the water drainage. Kirchner said he always struggles with setbacks and further encroaching into them. He understands that height is primarily the issue on this application rather than getting closer to the property line, however he feels it isn’t quite a like-kind improvement as it’s not a rebuild of the existing dimensions including the height; it’s an extension of that. Gettman agreed with Kirchner, the only Practical Difficulty seems to be similar to the last application and that it’s really trying to avoid the aesthetic issue as opposed to a Practical Difficulty that the Commission would normally consider to overwhelm the variance for height. Libby asked on the design element, what is the existing pitch of the roof, as it almost looks like it’s close to a 12/12 pitch. Mr. Murphy said he believes it is a 12/12, but if they were going to do anything to that roof, anything above the existing pitch, which is almost flat right now, no matter what is done on the structure with building code, they will have to do an energy heel, if they build it to comply with City’s code. He said no matter what he does it will be above the dotted line on screen which will automatically trigger coming in for a variance. He noted that is what he struggles with: no matter what he does with the building/roof, it’s not going to fit within the parameters of what the City is allowing. He noted the structure is old and the trusses might be 2x6, so if he has to build it to code, he will have to come in and get a variance. No matter what they do, it was decided that they should make it architecturally pleasing for the entire neighborhood. He stated it’s out of compliance as it is and if he tries to do anything, it will be out of compliance. Libby asked what the pitch is of the existing roof. Mr. Murphy said he is unsure, but it might be a 3/12 or a 4/12 at the most, noting it’s pretty flat. Gettman asked what the minimum roof is that the dotted line would have to be raised, as it looks like they’ve basically raised another story. He said if they need to increase by 6 inches, one foot, two feet, to accommodate an accurate pitch. Mr. Murphy said he can’t tell that for sure, if they have to do trusses it will be 16 inches at minimum. Gettman noted the design is more than 16 inches. Kirchner said it is 10 feet. Gettman said that is what the Commission is struggling with, to go the 16 inches, what the Practical Difficulty is that they need to go above a certain amount, but that isn’t 10 feet.