03-22-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL It MISCHKE, Continued) b) Conditional approval of the left side setback and lakeshore setback for the second story house additions - the second story should be setback 8-9' from the lot line to maintain a 10* separation between the two homes (i.e. only a 1-2’ encroachment of side yard); however, requiring a full 10’ side setback would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... - applicant to confimi the structural ability of the existing foundation to support a second story, and address the degree of removals intended to allow a determination that this will not become a total rebuild. c) Approval of hardcover proposal, with appropriate conditions placed on use of non hardcover materials for walkways. Given the difficult parking siniation along Shadywood, Chair Smith inquired whether the parking design of the application might accentuate the problem. Gaflfron reiterated that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near the bridge, which acts as a shared driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking problems. Chair Smith asked what future 'maintenance and openness issues’ might arise. If the home were situated just 2’ from the lot line, Gaffron indicated that it would be difficult to maintain the home, or even erect a ladder that would not sit on the neighbor ’s property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for repairs as well. Rahn stated that, personally, he would like to see a 10’ side setback maintained and a longer driveway. He believed it would be more acceptable to allow an encroachment into the 0-75 ’ setback a little bit in exchange for a 10’ side setback. In addition, he suggested the garage be slid back into the home and that the second story be stepped back on the other side so no further massing of the encroachment occurs. Mischke stated that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage. Hawn asked whether the foundation had been evaluated to see if it could support a second story. She asked why the applicant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. Mischke stated that he had plans to have the foundation examined; however, felt he could not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick fa9ade currently in place. PAGE 12 of 30