Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff finds that the location of the sewer easement,the lack of a basement, and the existing structural level <br /> create practical difficulties for expanding the home or constructing a detached garage. Staff recommends <br /> the Commission consider the current request against the previous approvals, which are still in effect The <br /> applicant does not wish to add on to the home as was previously contemplated. Limiting current <br /> approvals for an enlarged shed/garage to the total square footage permitted in 2014 may be an appropriate <br /> consideration. Staff further suggests the Commission discuss the effects of the additional visible massing <br /> resulting from the 4-foot cantilever with 2.5 foot roof overhangs. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City or state would have any severe weather requirements for the building when <br /> someone constructs a slab on grade home in Orono. <br /> Curtis stated not to her knowledge. <br /> McGrann asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors. <br /> Curtis indicated she has not received any. <br /> Curtis displayed elevation views of the house from the front and back. The applicant has significant <br /> screening currently on the property and is proposing additional trees to screen that view. <br /> Landgraver asked where the 4-foot cantilever is proposed to be constructed. <br /> Curtis pointed out the 4-foot cantilever. Curtis stated the previous approval had a 2-foot overhang but <br /> that they are not adding 289 feet in addition to what was approved previously. The previous approval <br /> included square footage added onto the home and a shed. The current applicant is asking to combine that <br /> footprint and construct one building. Curtis indicated the footprint is the bottom footprint reflected in the <br /> calculation. As a result of the changes, the shed got bigger and a larger cantilever is being proposed than <br /> what was previously approved. <br /> Lemke asked if the previous application would be re-approved if there were no changes. <br /> Curtis indicated it would. <br /> David Wipson, Applicant, stated to address the 289 square feet, they are proposing the same combined <br /> square footage but are asking to combined that footage into one project along with the 4-foot cantilever <br /> on the back. Wipson noted the 2-foot cantilever was approved on the garage previously. The 2-foot <br /> overhang that was approved on the garage and accessory building resulted in 72 square feet of overhang <br /> and that his 4-foot cantilever results in 76 square feet. <br /> Wipson stated the issues of the practical difficulties are the same now as they were back when the prior <br /> owner was here. Wipson stated when the home was originally constructed, it did have a basement in it, <br /> but when they went through and applied to rebuild the home, they had to fill that in and lost the basement <br /> at that time. As a result of the basement being eliminated,the storage was lost,the mechanical room was <br /> lost, and a safe haven from severe weather was gone. When the home was rebuilt, there were also issues <br /> with a sewer easement, which was incorrectly recorded by about ten feet and limited what the previous <br /> owners were able to do. <br /> Page 12 of 29 <br />