Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis stated due to the topography, the garage addition would be a slightly bigger encroachment than the <br /> house. <br /> Landgraver asked what kind of feedback the City Council had on this application. <br /> Curtis stated there was a discussion about the need for a reasonable garage space but that the City Council <br /> did not feel the deck was necessary. Curtis stated to her understanding there was not unanimous support <br /> for the addition and that the City Council instead wanted the Planning Commission to relook at the <br /> application. <br /> Thiesse asked if he proposed a 9-foot addition at the City Council meeting. <br /> Curtis stated the applicant brought forward a 6-foot addition to the City Council and that a 9-foot addition <br /> was brought forward to the Planning Commission the second time. <br /> Thiesse stated he is conflicted on this application given the fact that the design of a vehicle that the <br /> transportation agencies use is 19 feet long, which is a practical difficulty in his mind. Thiesse stated an <br /> additional six feet would make it a 24-foot garage, which is a fairly standard garage, and that in his view <br /> an 18-foot garage should never have been built. Thiesse stated he does not care if he can park a car in the <br /> third stall, but the fact that the back wall contains mechanical equipment constitutes a practical difficulty. <br /> Lemke asked if the mechanical equipment is along the entire wall. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not know, but that even if it is half of the wall, that would only leave a one-stall <br /> garage. <br /> Thiesse asked Delaney if the garage would really affect her view of the lake given the trees in the area. <br /> Delaney stated when the leaves are down, it would, but in the summer the leaves block it. <br /> Thiesse stated if the 6-foot addition is not allowed,the cars will be sitting out in the driveway and <br /> blocking the neighbor's view to some degree. Thiesse stated he does see a practical difficulty. <br /> Lemke noted the garage addition is encroaching almost five feet into the 30-foot setback and also into the <br /> 75-foot setback, which makes it unacceptable on two different levels. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there is a substantial amount of house footprint that could be converted into a garage if <br /> so desired. <br /> Thiesse noted cost is not considered a practical difficulty. <br /> McGrann asked if the applicant would need a variance to expand his use into the easement. <br /> Curtis indicated they would since they currently exceed the amount of allowable hardcover within the 0- <br /> 75 foot zone. The property currently contains 11 percent total hardcover and the applicant can widen the <br /> driveway to some extent, but that he would not be able to widen the driveway very much on the east side. <br /> McGrann asked if the applicant could apply for additional hardcover. <br /> Page 4 of 26 <br />