Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Daly indicated they do not know that at this point. The existing structure has a driveway and sidewalks <br /> that wrap all the way around it. The current setback from the property on one side of the structure is 1.3 <br /> feet and they are not able to increase that at this point. Daly stated there are footings there so it is not a <br /> slab on grade but that they will not know if there are frost footings until they dig down. Daly stated at <br /> this point the garage appears to be in good condition. <br /> Curtis stated the Building Code would require footings four feet deep. <br /> Lemke asked whether the City Engineer has reviewed the footings. <br /> Curtis stated the City Engineer did not review that but that he has taken a preliminary look at the grading <br /> plan and did not note any concerns. <br /> Lemke asked how the garage was constructed in the first place with that setback. <br /> Curtis indicated the garage has been there quite a while and that Staff at this point would consider it a <br /> legal nonconforming structure. <br /> Daly stated the house was originally constructed sometime in the 1930s. Daly stated their goal is to <br /> maintain the characteristics of the home and keep it as an older style cottage on the lake. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is any way to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent. <br /> Daly indicated that would take some work and that he will need to know the actual square footage that <br /> equates to that percent. Daly noted they are reducing the current hardcover. <br /> (Commissioner Jan Berg recused herself from voting on this application) <br /> Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicants could probably eliminate the additional square feet of hardcover by <br /> building the attached garage and sliding the building over slightly. Schoenzeit noted on a clean sheet <br /> design,the City would never allow this, and the only reason why a hardcover variance is being considered <br /> is because it is existing. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission can make a recommendation that if the existing garage <br /> ends up being torn down that the applicants will have to build a structure more in compliance. <br /> Lemke stated his understanding is the applicants can rebuild in kind. <br /> Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis stated the better direction might be to not approve the setback <br /> variance and direct the applicant to revise their plans in some way. <br /> Page 4 of 15 <br />