06-18-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (001-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Weinberger staled the existing hardcuser on the property consists of 987 square feet or 20 percent in the 0-75* setback and 6.274 square feet or 5S percent within the 75-250’ setback. The hardcover in the 250-500’ setback consists of 1.656 square feel or 26 percent. The hardcover within the 0-75’ setback includes a stainvay. a walk down to the lake, a large patio, and a small portion of the house. The hardcover within the 75-250’ setback consists of a driveway, a large parking area, he house, some walkways, and a storage shed. Weinberger noted there would be relatively no chancre to the building env elope w ithin the 10 fool setback encroachment on the north side of the house. Pr.marilv the areas where changes would occur meet the required 10 feel setback. No variances are required to expand the second level living areas up to the 10 fool setback. Weinberger stated one concern with the proposal is the expanded roof line to the north side of the Applicants' house that may .iffect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property . Another factor contributing to potential drainage issues is the total existing hardcover on the property . Weinberger stated the house is non-conforming as it is located within the required setbacks The property owners have two options to consider with this application One is to consider remodeling the existing house, which requires the removal and replacement of the second story and some structural work to the foundation: or two. removal the existing residence and build new The Applicants have chosen to remodel and renovate. One question to address is whether the proposed foundation work is of such a magnitude that this project should meet the standards for new construction. The Applicant has indicated the majority of the foundation work consists of ss>me repair work to the lakeside of the residence, with the remaining foundation being intact ard in gi>od condition Weinberger slated the Planning Commission should consider whether the total amount of hardcover should be reduced if the variances are granted and whether the shed should remain. W einberger commented the shed would require repair at some lime in the near future. Ccnsiruction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located within the size setback and within 10 feet of another structure. Staff concurs that the topography of the site makes any substantial revisions to the location of the house challenging. Tlie steep slope to the road results in the need for a long driveway and significant site regrading and alteration of drainage patterns in the immediate neighborhood would be necessary to move the house to a location where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, w ith no expansions where it encroaches requiad setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow renovations and remodeling of the house subject to the following conditions: 1. Tlie Applicant must demonstrate and confirm the foundation work is not required only to allow the expansion of the second story , but would be needed even if no expansion was planned. 2. Hardcov er removals w iihin the parking area should be required to prov ide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building env elope shall be permitted w ithin required setbacks. PAGE 19