Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MMISSION ~fEETING HELD ON APRIL 15 1996 ' (#5 -#2088 Winfield Stephens -Continued) Mabusth asked the Commissioners their opinion of the 3-1/2' setback to the side lot line and what their recommendation would be of the encroachment into the County right-of- way. Lindquist noted the proposal meets the structural coverage allowed and suaaested ~ 01:l the home be rearranged on the lot to meet the setback. The applicant said the building inspector said the foundation could be used, if more support posts and beams were added, to extend the home 6' and add a second story. Mabusth noted that she will review this matter with the building staff. The former owner noted that the original part of the house had a fieldstone foundation that was 2-3' thick and adequate to support the addition with a new foundation wall on the east only. Mabusth clarified with the applicant that the proposal would only require a new foundation wall on the east to support the structure. Hawn noted that the project would then not be new construction. Smith asked the applicant if there were any reductions that could be made to the home. Stephens said he used the 15% allowable for structural coverage in designing the house. Smith suggested reducing the structure to eliminate the need for any variances. Lindquist noted if the home was rearranged, it could have significant impact on the views for the neighbor to the north, and felt there would be the need for a variance for setback. Peterson commented that the dramatic variances are for side and rear setbacks. Hawn commented on the need to be consistent when homes are being torn down and replaced. She noted the value in taking the impact to the neighbor's view into consideration. Mabusth clarified that the 3-1/2' setback variance is for a side setback to the principal structure. The attached garage will be located 27' from lot line. Lindquist asked if the existing foundation would be used with the exception of the east wail. T}J.e applicant said the existing footings and foundation with the exception of the east wall would be used. Peterson said the proposal would be acceptable to him if the applicant would remain within the existing foundation. · Berg noted the need to clarify the inspector's comments. There were no public comments. 6