Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, August 18, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued) <br /> b) Conditional approval of the left side setback and lakeshore setback for the second <br /> story house additions <br /> - the second story should be setback 8-9' from the lot line to maintain a 10' <br /> separation between the two homes (i.e. only a 1-2' encroachment of side <br /> yard); however, requiring a full 10' side setback would not be inconsistent <br /> with recent approvals,primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to <br /> avoid future maintenance issues... <br /> - applicant to confirm the structural ability of the existing foundation to <br /> support a second story, and address the degree of removals intended to <br /> allow a determination that this will not become a total rebuild. <br /> c) Approval of hardcover proposal,with appropriate conditions placed on use of non- <br /> hardcover materials for walkways. <br /> Given the difficult parking situation along Shadywood, Chair Smith inquired whether the <br /> parking design of the application might accentuate the problem. <br /> Gaffron reiterated that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near <br /> the bridge, which acts as a shared driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking <br /> problems. <br /> Chair Smith asked what future `maintenance and openness issues' might arise. <br /> If the home were situated just 2' from the lot line, Gaffron indicated that it would be <br /> difficult to maintain the home, or even erect a ladder that would not sit on the neighbor's <br /> property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for <br /> repairs as well. <br /> Rahn stated that, personally, he would like to see a 10' side setback maintained and a <br /> longer driveway. He believed it would be more acceptable to allow an encroachment into <br /> the 0-75' setback a little bit in exchange for a 10' side setback. In addition, he suggested <br /> the garage be slid back into the home and that the second story be stepped back on the <br /> other side so no further massing of the encroachment occurs. <br /> Mischke stated that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway <br /> would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage. <br /> Hawn asked whether the foundation had been evaluated to see if it could support a second <br /> story. She asked why the applicant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. <br /> Mischke stated that he had plans to have the foundation examined; however, felt he could <br /> not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick façade currently in place. <br /> PAGE 12 of 30 <br />