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 25 of 31  <br />  <br />Gaffron stated one of the concerns is that the foundation was originally constructed in 1981 and may not <br />support a second story. The applicant has been asked to provide certification from a structural engineer <br />that the foundation will support a second story but that information has yet to be submitted. <br /> <br />The applicant has indicated they have removed a small shed from the property and at this time do not plan <br />to remove the garage, patio, deck, or driveway. The garage, deck, and driveway appear to constitute legal <br />nonconforming hardcover and/or structure. In other similar situations, the City has encouraged the <br />owners to consider building tuck-under garages and removing the lengthy driveways and backyard <br />detached garages that are near the creek. In this case, the existing home is barely larger than a typical <br />tuck-under garage and the second story addition may be more appropriate than a total tear-down/rebuild <br />that likely would result in a larger footprint. Gaffron stated one of the issues involved in this situation is <br />that the survey indicates the neighboring home to the immediate west is encroaching on the applicants’ <br />property by as much as 1.7 feet. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the property owner across the road to the north has submitted comments in opposition to <br />the variances that is included in the Planning Commission’s packets. The neighbor has expressed <br />concerns regarding the house being too close to the power lines and the impacts a second story blocking <br />their lake view. Gaffron noted City Code does not protect the views of that neighbor. <br /> <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variances for addition of a second story on <br />the basis that hardcover and structural lot coverage will not increase, the second story will maintain the <br />existing first story setbacks, and the proposed addition will not be out of character with other homes in the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if this house has an average lakeshore setback. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it does and that it meets the average lakeshore setback. The detached garage does not <br />meet the average lakeshore setback. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if it should be conforming. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated since it is existing, it is not an issue for consideration. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the issue is whether the second story encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and <br />impacts the neighbors’ views, which it does not appear to do. <br /> <br />Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues for consideration outlined in Staff’s <br />report. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated any approval should be subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Prior to Council review, the applicants shall provide a corrected survey showing the correct lot <br /> dimensions and showing the accurately depicted average lakeshore setback line. The applicant <br /> should also provide corrected hardcover calculations to confirm to Staff’s calculations. <br /> <br />2. The approval is based on the preliminary floor plans and elevation view submitted, which depict a <br /> second-story home of approximately 26 feet in peak height. Gaffron noted the existing garage <br /> floor is at the 931.5 floodplain elevation and the main floor of the house is at 933.5, which is two <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 25 of 31]