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. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Murphy said they’re only looking for 5 feet, and everything outside of the blue area is within compliance. He clarified any roof system he puts in will be inside the blue area and will need a variance regardless. Erickson would like to point out the communication from a neighbor concerned about drainage, noting the two foot setback area is currently a wet area, and were concerned that new construction might possibly make that worse. Even if that weren’t the case, he has a similar concern with this application in that there is land on the property where a new structure could be built in a different location and would comply with at least the side setback. He noted he considers it a fairly extreme setback down to a two foot variance as compared to one that might be in compliance. He feels the best justification other than the roofline is that they want to use the existing slab, which to him, if they’re going to rebuild the entire structure, only costs a little more to pour a new slab. Based on that, his inclination is to deny the application. Chair Ressler asked if the application is not necessarily rebuilding the entire structure, it’s just a matter of redoing the roof and going up as long as the existing structure supports it. Ms. Oakden answered yes, the plan shows they are proposing new windows and doors, but most of the structure is maintained and includes a new roofline. Chair Ressler said his perspective is if they were rebuilding, that roofline is probably arguably insufficient as far as runoff. He said it’s occupying the same area of runoff with a sharp pitch versus a shallow pitch. In this circumstance, he is in support of it because going up is adding on to existing structure, trying to make it conform to a shallow pitch for 5.5 feet with some sort of weird half wall, go up and carry on…he said it’s doing a lot to make not a lot of impact, change or improvement from how the neighbors are going to be impacted by the water runoff. He thinks this is a good opportunity for the neighbors, before it gets to the City Council, the neighbors can get together with the applicant and discuss what a plan is and see if their support can be rallied as that can be an improvement to a situation that right now is apparently a difficulty. Chair Ressler is in support of the application because of those circumstances. John Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle, homeowner, said he appreciates the perspectives each of them brought to this project. He said from the start, they’ve felt it’s not so much a rebuilding as it is making it work more effectively for their needs. He said they’ve been focused on cubic feet versus square feet because what isn’t shown is a structure, noting there was previously another 28 feet heading towards the house that was removed during the rebuild of the home. In reading the neighbor’s full letters, they are supportive and are just saying if this happens, they want to improve the drainage by putting eaves on the building, which Mr. Ellenberger is fully compliant with. He noted both neighbors are fully supportive. Across the street isn’t a home, rather it’s the park so they will not be obstructing the view of anyone towards the lake. He said it was those types of things that made them feel it is a relatively minimal change. Gettman noted as mentioned several times, the setbacks are sacred to the Commission. He said the homeowner has done a lot of things and tried to do it all for the right reasons, he asked why the homeowner wouldn’t want to pull the building back 4.5-5 feet and then go as high and wide as they want into their land. He said it comes back to the sacred part, as the building is already encroaching, so the Commission is trying to protect a further encroachment. He noted they’ve had massive arguments,