03-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIOK MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o*clockpjn. (#9 #03>2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Contin^ ----------------------------- b) Conditional approval of the left tide 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* gnfmfrhmrnt of side yard); however, requiring a fiUl 10* side setback would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... • applicant to confirm the strucniral ability of the existing foundation to support a second story, and address the degree of remo\’aLi intended to allow a determiiution that this will not become a total rebuild. c) Approval of hardcover proposal, with ^ropriaie conditions placed on use of non hardcover materials fior walkways. Giv« the difficult parking situation along Shadywood. Chair Smith inquired whether the parking desipi of the application might accentuate the problem. Gaffron reitertted that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near **^^bl"**^*' ** * driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking Chair Smith asked what ftiture ‘maintenance and openness issues’ might arise. If the home ww situated just 2’ from the lot line. Gaffion indicated that it would be difficult to^mamtain the hom^or even erect a ladder that would not sit on neighbor’s property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for repairs as well. Rahn stat^ that, personally, he would like to sec a 10’ side setback * 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 sUd back into the home and that the second story be stepoed back on the other side so no ftuther massing of the encroachment occurs. Mischke sUted 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 ippUcant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. Misc^e stated that he had plaia to have the foundation examined; howev er, felt he could not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick facade currently in place. PAGE 12 of 30