Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 5 of 31  <br />  <br />typically requires a 10-foot separation between structures Gaffron indicated the retaining walls will be at <br />least four feet high but that the retaining wall near the east property line could be as high as nine feet high <br />and possibly need to be engineered. Gaffron stated if the roof system and back wall are supporting that <br />side wall, it will require some support since the applicants will be removing three to six feet of the roof <br />support structure. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if the underground structure is kept, whether there will be foundation issues with the new <br />structure or what the exact concern is. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated he does not have the answer to whether there are risks to having the two structures <br />close together, but that from a code standpoint it typically requires a 10-foot setback. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if Staff suggested the underground garage removal or whether it was in the applicants’ <br />original proposal. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated she initially met with David Schmid and that it was a discussion point raised by Staff as it <br />relates to hardcover. Curtis indicated Staff was not aware of the close proximity of the two structures <br />during that initial discussion. Curtis stated Staff felt that retaining a portion of the driveway with a <br />parking spot would be beneficial. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked even though the underground garage is covered by dirt, whether it would be considered <br />hardcover. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it is included in the hardcover numbers. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if there is even a semi-conforming location for the shed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it would have to be located ten feet off the side and rear lot lines, which would then place it <br />within the swale or up against the house if the oak tree is retained. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated a 22’ x 22’ garage is not very large and that storage space is likely needed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated an option may be to widen the garage and eliminate the shed. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated her concern is removal of the underground garage since it seems to create other issues. <br /> <br />McGrann stated the new structure will appear to add more hardcover than the underground garage did. <br />McGrann indicated he would prefer to have them retain the underground garage and eliminate the shed <br />but that he is not opposed to making the new garage larger. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked what the condition of the underground garage is. <br /> <br />Ciliberto sated the underground garage is partially in the ground and partially above ground. Ciliberto <br />stated she believes the wall closest to the stairs is cracked and will have to be replaced or repaired. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if they would prefer to keep the underground structure. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 5 of 31]