Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 17,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated that is his concern as well but the trend in the neighborhood is two-story homes. Thiesse <br /> stated he would like the Planning Commission to think long and hard about increasing structural coverage <br /> in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Leskinen noted this application is compliant within the footprint. <br /> Thiesse stated the other application the Planning Commission rejected a couple of months ago was also <br /> compliant with the footprint. <br /> Leskinen asked if anyone has any suggestions for mitigating that. <br /> Landgraver asked if Commissioner Thiesse's point goes to the average setback for the second story. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not see any way around this and that the trend of the neighborhood is two-story <br /> homes. Thiesse stated he just wants the Planning Commission to be aware that it is within the 75-foot <br /> setback and it is a huge expansion of that area. Thiesse indicated he is for the expansion but that the <br /> variance has to be unique to this property. <br /> Landgraver stated he did tour the neighborhood and that he felt comfortable that this neighborhood is <br /> changing to two-story homes. Landgraver stated there might be a massing impact that perhaps cannot be <br /> visualized right now since the lot is so small. <br /> Leskinen commented jogging the house in would make it look similar to the home at 3669 where it is <br /> jogged in on each side but that she is not sure that would give the applicant what he is looking for in <br /> terms of space. <br /> Lemke stated he can see how two-story homes might be the trend, but that he still has a concern with the <br /> amount of house being proposed for the lot. Lemke stated from the lakeside it will appear to be quite a bit <br /> of massing and that the stepping back of the house would help to alleviate that. Lemke stated given the <br /> way the house currently sits, he does not like what he is envisioning. <br /> Leskinen noted in Staffls recommendations the applicants must comply with the definition of a half-story. <br /> Leskinen asked if that statement is changing what they are seeing in terms of the plan. <br /> Curtis stated she is not entirely sure that what is shown meets the half-story definition. Staff did a <br /> preliminary analysis with the plans as they were submitted and Staff wants to make sure it is clear to the <br /> applicant that Staff will do another analysis at the time the building plans are submitted. Curtis stated the <br /> bonus room has to meet the half-story. <br /> Leskinen asked if it met it in Staffls preliminary analysis. <br /> Curtis stated in her view it generally met it but that Staff did not have the ability to fully determine that <br /> given the level of detail in the plans at this stage. Curtis stated due to that, she could not be 100 percent <br /> positive it met the half-story definition but that the plans appear to meet the intent of that rule. Curtis <br /> stated any change in the half-story would not necessarily change the exterior profile of the house and <br /> would be more internal. <br /> Thiesse asked if the house on the channel stayed within their footprint but went upward. <br /> Page 8 of 43 <br />