Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3010 Theodore Capra,Continued) <br /> Winkey stated the Planning Commission has struggled in the past with what constitutes a remodel <br /> project versus a rebuild. Winkey inquired if there are any prices that the City has on this project. <br /> Gundlach stated she has not done a price per square foot calculation but that 1,584 square feet exist <br /> currently and 1,050 square feet is being added. Gundlach stated the existing second story is not going to <br /> be expanded except for a bathroom and a storage area will be added above the garage. Gundlach stated <br /> in her opinion this project is borderline for being considered a remodel. <br /> Winkey stated in his opinion the value of the remodel project would exceed 50 percent of the value of <br /> the residence and should be considered a rebuild. <br /> Bremer cited a previous situation where a property owner was allowed to add a second story where none <br /> existed, add one foot to the first story, and add an attached garage. <br /> Curtis stated in that situation the garage was not attached but that the ceiling height was raised in a <br /> portion of the existing residence, with a half-story addition being added. Curtis noted the Planning <br /> Commission would be discussing that application later at tonight's meeting due to some issues that have <br /> arisen. <br /> Gaffron stated the property owner in that situation has determined after-the-fact that the foundation is <br /> basically worthless and that very little of the original house will remain following the construction. <br /> Rahn stated he has a difficult time approving a remodeling project when the size of the footprint is <br /> almost being doubled. <br /> Bremer stated restoring original homes along the lake helps to preserve the rural character of the city but <br /> that there is always a concern with using the existing foundation. <br /> Capra stated due to the present condition of the house,it would be better to tear it down. <br /> Alexander stated the exterior walls of the house are fine but that the height of the main floor is <br /> substandard,which is the reason for raising the height. <br /> Capra noted the existing residence is only 1,000 square feet and that he is only basically allowed to <br /> go up under the 25 percent hardcover limitation. <br /> Rahn pointed out he is not saying the applicant is limited to only going up with the structure. <br /> Jurgens stated the main reason this application is before the Planning Commission is the amount of <br /> hardcover on the lot,which is preventing the applicant from obtaining a building permit. Jurgens <br /> inquired if the rationale for removing the second story is because of the substandard ceiling height of the <br /> first floor. <br /> PAGE 4 <br />