Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> minimize the impact on that neighbor's views. The applicants could decrease the proposed roof pitch <br /> from 6:12 down to 4:12 or 3:12 and/or reorient the peak from north/south to east/west. The applicants <br /> have revised their plans to a hip roof from a gable roo£ Staff would recommend the design of the garage <br /> be revised from what is currently being proposed. <br /> The applicants have provided their practical difficulties documentation and have submitted letters from <br /> two neighboring properties. <br /> Staff would propose the following issues be discussed: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> Schoenzeit asked why the garage will not be connected to the house or what would prevent a breezeway <br /> from being constructed. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicants would require a building permit along with the hardcover being increased. <br /> Gaffron noted this is a two-acre zone where a 30-foot setback would be required. <br /> Landgraver noted Staff's report states Staff would recommend that the garage design be modified to <br /> reduce the magnitude of the view encroachment if possible. Landgraver asked what Staff is thinking in <br /> thatregard. <br /> Gaffron stated that is in regards to the peak level. Currently the applicants are proposing a 6:12 pitch. If <br /> the pitch is reduced, it would lower the peak of the roo£ Gaffron stated another option would be to <br /> construct a hip roof rather than a gable roof, which would reduce the impact to the neighbor. <br /> Landgraver asked if that could also be changed to a 4:12 ratio. <br /> Gaffron stated it likely can. Gaffron stated currently the peak is running north/south, and depending on <br /> the views of the neighbor across that roof, if it is turned so that it is an east/west roof, some additional <br /> views may be gained. Gaffron stated there are a variety of options that could be explored. Gaffron noted <br /> the neighbor's views are mainly from a second level. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the location of a tree that might be impacted by the project. Gaffron stated the <br /> applicants will also need to ensure that the drainage does not go offto the neighboring property. <br /> Landgraver asked what the impact on the average lakeshore setback would be for the neighbors. <br /> Gaffron stated there would be no impact for the neighbor to the west since the lake is to the southwest. <br /> Page 7 of 29 <br />