Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-3066 William and Anita Rouse,Continued) <br /> Rahn inquired what the required setback is. <br /> Curtis indicated the street setback is 35 feet and that the garage was reviewed as a side yard setback, <br /> which is 10 feet. <br /> Gaffron noted there was another situation within the City where a property owner had removed <br /> everything but the basement and the cap,which ended up being more than 50 percent of the residence. <br /> Gaffron stated in that instance it was better to remove all the walls rather than to try to preserve the <br /> walls. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the cap is remaining on this house. <br /> Gaffron stated the stud walls on the main floor are remaining but that the floor and the floor joists have <br /> been removed above the deteriorated foundation. Gaffron indicated the current ceiling would also be <br /> removed. <br /> Rahn inquired how much of the foundation was exposed at the time this application was reviewed by <br /> the Planning Commission. <br /> Bremer noted the pictures are from the inside of the crawl space. <br /> Jurgens stated it appears from the pictures that the foundation had been sealed on the outside. <br /> Curtis noted the applicants did have a structural engineer look at the foundation that indicated he <br /> thought the foundation would be adequate but that he recommended another person also look at the <br /> foundation. <br /> Gaffron stated the statute now allows people to replace nonconforming structures, and that the issue <br /> becomes whether a greater setback would have been required at the time this application was originally <br /> reviewed if it had been known that the foundation needed to be replaced. Gaffron stated one option <br /> would be to decrease the width of the house by five feet. Gaffron noted this application would be <br /> appearing before the City Council at its March 28th meeting. <br /> Jurgens stated if the applicants choose to tear down that entire section of the house,he would prefer they <br /> meet the required setback. <br /> Rahn commented that the amount of original wall that would be retained is very small. Rahn stated the <br /> difference between what was approved and what is being proposed is that the residence will now be <br /> sitting on a new foundation. <br /> PAGE 21 <br />