Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 18, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 20 of 33  <br />  <br />1. The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of the corrected utility easement at the <br /> rear of the home prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br /> <br />2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer. <br /> <br />The proposed shed results in 144 square feet of additional structural coverage over allowed levels and <br />may result in significant site grading and tree removal. It does not appear to be consistent with the <br />neighborhood. For these reasons, Staff recommends denial of the structural coverage variance for the <br />shed. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked when the variances were originally received whether the existing home had a basement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated it did. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the subsequent home could not have a basement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated portions of the home were found to be located within a floodplain, with the basement not <br />meeting the minimum floor elevation. The applicants were advised to reconstruct in the manner that was <br />done. <br /> <br />Katherine Ziegler, Applicant, stated the improvements will help them address the issues created by the <br />loss of the basement. Ziegler indicated the issues created by the loss of the basement were the need to <br />accommodate the utilities upstairs, lost living space, and lost storage space. In addition, any opportunity <br />for a storm shelter was lost. <br /> <br />Ziegler stated they rebuilt their home according to the recommendations of the City but have since <br />discovered that the house does not meet their needs. Ziegler indicated they have attempted to sell the <br />property for the past year but have not been successful. The feedback from the prospective buyers has <br />been the lack of a family room, lack of storage, and lack of a storm shelter. Ziegler stated four potential <br />buyers were interested in purchasing the property initially until they learned they would need to request a <br />variance. Ziegler stated that is the reason why they are requesting the variances now. <br /> <br />Ziegler stated in their view it is a pretty reasonable request. Ziegler stated while the road is considered <br />hardcover, it does not have a visual impact on building mass, but that they will not argue the exclusion of <br />it from the total lot area. <br /> <br />Ziegler indicated every property in the neighborhood except theirs has a detached garage near the road. <br />Many of the prospective buyers have indicated they would like to construct a detached garage as well, but <br />they were told that would not be allowed. Ziegler stated they have attempted to be reasonable by going <br />with the 15 percent of the total lot and not asking for an attached two-car garage but are instead proposing <br />to make the attached garage large enough to allow for the first garage stall to be converted to a family <br />room since it is the only reasonable space to add more living area. Ziegler stated adding the six feet will <br />allow a 22’ x 24’ foot garage. <br /> <br />Ziegler stated the building in the back would serve to replace some of the storage that was lost and the <br />lower level would serve as a storm shelter. Ziegler indicated there is a significant drop in the grade as <br />you move from the back of the lot towards the home. There is a natural break in the yard where an old <br />retaining wall was which they would like to take advantage of. Ziegler stated that area would allow the <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/15/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 20 of 33]