Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLAI�TNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 19,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3329 David Berg, Continued) <br /> Kempf stated the negative impact on the neighbors given the expansion of the nonconformity would <br /> relate to their views and the amount of light that would come into their residences, and in his opinion <br /> the expansion is inappropriate given those reasons. The residence currently encroaches into the <br /> setbacks and the applicant should consider eliminating the full second-story addition and perhaps <br /> incorporating some knee walls and a partial second story to help offset the encroachment. Kempf <br /> stated it does appear that this lot may not support a second story given the structural and hardcover <br /> coverage that already exists on the lot. <br /> Berg stated he is not able at this time to comment specifically to all the issues raised since he has only <br /> recently learned of them. Berg indicated there are other houses on the lake across the channel that <br /> have more massing than what he is proposing for his property. <br /> Curtis stated the residences that were constructed new on the channel do meet the required average <br /> lakeshore setback and the side yard setbacks. <br /> Kempf stated that the Planning Commission does not mean to imply that the house would need to be <br /> relocated out of the 75 foot setback but that they would like to see the residence meet the side yard <br /> setbacks. <br /> Turner noted the residences referred to by the applicant also meet the structural coverage limits with <br /> the exception of one house. <br /> Kempf noted the garage consists of a substantial amount of structural coverage. Kempf asked <br /> whether the applicant would like his application tabled to allow him some time to review his options <br /> given the fact that a few of the commissioners have expressed concern that the lot may be maxed out <br /> and that they would like to see the addition meet the side yard setbacks. <br /> Zullo stated she would like to see a report by a structural engineer indicating that the foundation would <br /> support a second story. <br /> Curtis noted the City's building inspector has indicated the foundation does not need engineering. <br /> Kroeger stated he would not be in favor of any side yard encroachment and suggested the applicant <br /> consider converting some of the garage space into living space. <br /> Berg stated the garage is finished off. Berg asked if it would still be an issue if the second story does <br /> not exceed the building envelope. <br /> Zullo stated the portion of the second story that extends into the setbacks is the issue. <br /> Curtis indicated she explained to the applicant what he could construct without a side yard setback <br /> variance was that he could construct a stepped in second story that met the ten foot setback. The <br /> applicant is now wondering whether the Planning Commission would be okay if the second story goes <br /> over the exterior wall or whether a lrnee wall should be constructed on the exterior. <br /> PAGE 9 <br />