07-16-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21,2001 («Mn-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the existing hardcover on the property consists of 987 square feet or 20 percent in the 0-75* setback and 6,274 square feet or 55 percent within the 75-250’ setback. The hardcover in the 250-500’ setback consists of 1.656 square feet 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, the house, some walkways, and a storage shed. Weinberger noted there would be relatively no change to the building envelope w ithin the 10 foot setback encroachment on the north side of the house. Primarily the areas where changes would occur mert the required 10 feet setback. No variances are required to expand the second level liv ing areas up to the 10 fix>t setback. Weinberger stated one concern w ith the propi>sal is the expanded roof line to the nonh side ot the Applicants’ house that may afTect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property. Another factor contributing to pi>tcntial 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 optbns 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 s^ime repair work to the lakeside of the residence, with the remaining foundation being intact and in good condition. \S cinberger stated 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. Weinberger commented the shed would require repair at some time in the near future. Construction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located w ithin the size setback and within 10 feet of another structure. Staffcoiicurs that the topography of the site makes any substantial rev isions to the location of the house challenging. The 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 neighK>rhix>d would be necessary to move the house to a liKation where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, with no expansions where it encroaches required setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. Staff recommends approv al of v ariances to allow renov ations and remodeling of the house subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must demonstrate and confinn 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. Hardcover removals within the parking area should be required to provide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building env elope shall be permitted w ithin required setbacks. PAGE 19