Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 26 of 35  <br />  <br />Brunello indicated that is not a problem and that the second story will be at least 10 feet away from the <br />side setback. Brunello stated in his view it is very important to maintain the 3.6 foot encroachment. <br /> <br />McGrann asked whether the applicant has thought at all about landscaping the area given the second <br />story. <br /> <br />Brunello stated due to the second story and pushing it closer to the street, he does not want it to be <br />looming towards the road. Brunello stated even though the footprint being proposed is very accurate in <br />his view, he may only construct a story and half. Brunello stated if a second story is constructed, it would <br />still be outside the 10-foot setback. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated he does not recall the Planning Commission ever previously approving just the <br />footprint. Schwingler asked if one of the potential risks with doing that is that something different will be <br />constructed. <br /> <br />Curtis stated essentially what the Planning Commission would be doing is creating a building pad within <br />defined setbacks without variances. Curtis stated she does not believe the City has taken this exact <br />approach before and that it was the applicant’s request to approach it this way. Curtis stated in her view it <br />may be a reasonable request but that she wants the Planning Commission to iron out any risks that may <br />present themselves. <br /> <br />Brunello stated he is not actually applying for a building permit and that the objective is to design a <br />building envelope so a home can be designed within those parameters. The existing house is five feet <br />away from the wetland and the new house would be located in a slightly better location. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted the driveway will also be removed from that area and moving it up to the front of the <br />house, which is a good thing. Thiesse noted the buffer is a non-mowed, non-maintained area that will <br />encompass all the way to the back of the house. <br /> <br />Brunello indicates he understands that and that the area would be left natural. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if a mostly conforming building envelope is possible on the lot anywhere. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the setback line continues all the way to the 35-foot setback line to the south. There is a <br />50-foot setback from the street property line and the 35-foot wetland buffer that cuts through the back. <br />The actual zoning district setback continues all the way up to the 35-foot setback from the north. In <br />addition, the applicant is limited by the floodplain and wetland buffer. Curtis indicated she does not <br />know the feasibility as far as constructing a house in the low area. Curtis noted there are also floodplain <br />requirements for a lower floor elevation that would need to be met, which could be accomplished through <br />filling to some extent. Curtis indicated she is unsure how the Watershed District would view that. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/21/14* <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/2013 <br />[Page 26 of 35]