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 27 of 35  <br />  <br />Leskinen commented there are a number of setbacks on this property which makes it difficult to construct <br />a totally conforming house. <br /> <br />Curtis stated there is significant side yard encroachment. <br /> <br />Brunello indicated he has spoken with the neighbor to the south and that they are not opposed to the <br />project. Brunello stated the neighbors are aware of what is being proposed. <br /> <br />Thiesse commented that usually he would require the house be moved over but that there is quite a bit of <br />distance between this house and the neighbor’s home. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked whether there are limits or anything the Planning Commission would need to build into <br />an approval to mitigate any potential risks of approving a building envelope versus a building footprint. <br /> <br />Curtis stated some of the issues for consideration address that as do some of Staff’s recommendations. If <br />the Planning Commission feels it is risky to approve a building envelope as opposed to an actual building <br />footprint, Curtis noted the additional structural footprint limit or the structural coverage limit would be a <br />tool that could used and would be a mitigating factor. In addition, the Planning Commission could limit <br />the massing on the property and that they do have the ability to mitigate the impacts of the variances by <br />requiring things such as screening. <br /> <br />Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with what Staff has recommended in terms of those factors, but <br />that she was not sure whether there was anything else the Planning Commission should consider. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could approve the footprint of the house and then if the <br />applicant varies it, he would be required to come back. <br /> <br />Curtis stated that is not what the applicant is requesting but the Planning Commission could do that. <br />Thiesse asked whether the applicant is planning on moving the location of the house around. Thiesse <br />stated the concern is that if the Planning Commission is going to approve a building pad, that would give <br />quite a bit of latitude on the variance. <br /> <br />Brunello stated the orange area is what he is asking for. Brunello noted the house will not be very big and <br />that the orange area is basically what he is asking for. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if he intends to meet the 10-foot setback for the second story on the south side. <br /> <br />Brunello indicated he would. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the rear encroachment into the wetland. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he is not comfortable with it, but if you look at the amount of wetland and buffer in that <br />area, allowing a 5-foot encroachment would be insignificant. Thiesse noted he is relocating the driveway, <br />which will help with runoff and is an improvement. <br /> <br />Brunello noted there is currently a lot of mass that is in the wetland which will be removed. Brunello <br />stated it is necessary for the southwest corner of the house to encroach to keep everything located to the <br />south side of the lot. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/21/14* <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/2013 <br />[Page 27 of 35]