01/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, CONTINUED) Staff finds that while the rear/street yard setback variance and hardcover variance are minar based on the fact that no additional encroachments or hardcover are being proposed, the structural coverage component is not minor. The structural coverage ordinance exists to limit structural mass on properties. The addition of a second story above an existing single story, from Staff's perspective, adds mass to the property. The only hardship inherent to the land to grant a structural coverage variance beyond 15 percent is the actual are of the property. The Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not the applicant should be permitted the second story addition based on the 1998 approval that allowed for 2,406 square feet of hardcover. The Planning Commission should consider the differences between footprint expansions and second story additions as they relate to overall mass. Also, the Planning Commission should consider if the applicant has a right to 2,406 square feet of structure due to Resolution#4055, even though it was never considered and the current proposal, including the existing structure, does not match the 1998 approval. Gaffron noted that 352 square feet of hardcover appears to have been added to the 0-75' zone without approval. The 1998 variance allowed for 254 square feet and the current survey shows 606 square feet. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the intent of the structural coverage ordinance and determine if the second story addition would add additional mass to the property. Staff would also recommend that the applicant comply with the 0-75' hardcover permitted within Resolution#4055, which would require removal of 352 square feet of hardcover. Tritz stated the intent for going the full length of the structure was to tie the structure to the corners of the existing residence. Tritz indicated he would be willing to move the structure back to get it out of the setbacks. Tritz stated he also would be willing to remove a portion of the driveway. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kempf stated in his opinion this project would have an impact on the neighbor to the south. Tritz stated he has a signed agreement with the McCormicks and the Osterbergs who have indicated they are in support of the project. Tritz indicated his other neighbor does not reside there year-round but is aware of the project. Kempf stated a longer view should be taken and that the homes in the immediate vicinity will someday be occupied by other people. Winkey inquired whether the hardcover in the 0-75' zone could be reduced. Tritz stated there is a permit in his file for the retaining wall and steps. Tritz indicated the hardcover in the 0-75' zone consists of approximately 40 percent for the steps, 30 percent for a portion of the house PAGE 34