Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Approval of the requested variance to connect the detached garage to the house would make the now <br /> conforming principal structure non-conforming with respect to the front and side yard setbacks. The <br /> garage roof changes will result in a further encroachment into the required 10-foot side yard setback for <br /> the one-half foot at the north corner of the garage and a slight change in the encroachment on the front. <br /> The garage is situated at an angle so that only a small portion, a corner, encroaches into the side setback. <br /> Staff has visited the site and took a number of photos to document how the garage was located with <br /> respect to the road,the vegetation, and the topography of the site. While the garage is only set back 6.8 <br /> feet from the front property line, Casco Point road is not centered within the right-of-way,which results <br /> in a 34-foot setback from the paved roadway. <br /> The applicants are proposing to rotate the orientation of the roof and to raise the peak of the roof ten feet <br /> higher than existing. As proposed,the neighboring property owner will see a garage wall and gable end <br /> of the garage roof as opposed to the garage wall and portions of roof as they do today. <br /> It is unclear from the plans if the applicants are planning windows or other architectural features in the <br /> north-facing gable. There does not appear to be adequate space to install trees or other screening, at least <br /> at the northern corner,to minimize the views of the garage. The south-facing gable has a vent at the peak. <br /> Inclusion of architectural features or windows along the north wall may break up the view from the <br /> adjacent property. there is space available to screen the proposed addition connecting the home and <br /> detached garage from the neighboring property. <br /> If this were a lakeshore lot, a detached garage would be permitted generally in the location of the existing <br /> garage. The existing home on the property currently conforms to the required setbacks set forth in the <br /> LR-1C district. Approving the requested variances will make the home's location non-conforming. If, in <br /> the future,the property owner wishes to replace the existing home in kind,the location of the existing <br /> home would be considered a legal in-kind rebuild. <br /> If the Planning Commission concludes the applicants' request is reasonable and meets the practical <br /> difficulty criteria for granting a variance, a recommendation for approval should be considered. <br /> Bennett asked if this is the same applicant that requested the original variance. <br /> Curtis asked if the applicants were the owners of the property in 1978. <br /> Coryea indicated they were not. <br /> Devlin stated they would like to improve the appearance of the house as well as make the roof of the <br /> garage match the house. Landscaping will also be done around the garage to help improve the <br /> appearance. Devlin stated they would also like to construct an addition between the house and the garage <br /> to allow for a mud room and bathroom to help accommodate them as they grow older. The master <br /> bedroom will also be relocated downstairs. <br /> Leskinen asked if the applicants are proposing to re-side the garage as well. <br /> Devlin indicated they are. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the garage has frost footings or if it is slab on grade. <br /> Page 2 of 25 <br />