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 21 of 33  <br />  <br />shed to be tucked in so it would appear to be a normal height building. The building would be more of a <br />walkout. <br /> <br />Ziegler noted the significant amount of grading that is being proposed is to help save the trees. Ziegler <br />stated they do not intend to cut down any trees as a result of the shed. Ziegler stated they do not know if <br />the maple tree can be saved but that they will attempt to work around it. <br /> <br />Thomas Ziegler, Applicant, stated the original survey was done five years ago and that a new survey has <br />not been done. The surveyor was told to take a 12 x 12 footprint and overlay it on the old survey. Ziegler <br />stated he believes the confusion comes from the fact that there are two large maple trees on the property. <br />Ziegler pointed out the maple tree that they are attempting to save. Ziegler stated currently there are two <br />small trees on the lot line, and if they need to be removed as part of the grading, they would be happy to <br />replace them. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ziegler stated there is a significant drainage issue that also needs to be addressed regardless if they <br />construct the shed. Ziegler stated there is a significant drop from the surface of Crystal Bay Road, which <br />is causing a great deal of erosion. Ziegler indicated at the present time they are not able to do much with <br />the back of the lot since it turns into a river every time it rains. Some of the proposed grading is in an <br />attempt to mitigate some of that damage. In addition, whenever trucks come around the corner, the slope <br />is being ground down and that in her view Staff should take a look at that issue. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed some photographs of the property. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if they have discussed the project with the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ziegler stated they have and that the neighbors are very happy with the proposal. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the easement dictated where the house would be located when it was rebuilt in 2008. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ziegler indicated the way it was explained to them was that if the footprint was moved at all, then all <br />of the setbacks would need to be met. Ziegler noted the lot is 45 feet wide at that point, and the building <br />footprint between the easement and the setbacks allowed for approximately a 900 square footprint. <br /> <br />Mr. Ziegler stated they used the existing footprint. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the building footprint could have been moved, whether that would have changed the <br />level of structural coverage. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ziegler stated they would have ended up in the same situation as they are now in and would have <br />needed to request a structural coverage variance in 2008. Ziegler indicated that area of the lot is very flat <br />and that they could not get even a partial basement under it without it being considered a three-story <br />house. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated the easement, other than the location, would not have affected the structural coverage. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ziegler stated it would have potentially allowed them to have a full second story but that they were <br />restricted to a story and a half because they were ahead of the 75-foot line. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/15/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 21 of 33]