My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-16-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:54:21 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:54:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 <br />0 <br />( #12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) <br />Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of Willow. The applicant <br />had previously received approval for a setback variance for a garage located in front of the <br />principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a 5' side <br />setback. The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front of <br />the principal structure. The existing garage was placed 6.4' from the side lot line. With <br />the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to <br />more restrictive area and setback standards. The .62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s. f. of <br />oversized accessory structure. The proposed garage would require an area variance of 77 <br />s. f. or 7.7 %. The structure would now require a setback of 30' and is proposed at 6.4. <br />Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true. There are <br />steep topographies on the lot. The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence. The only <br />gentle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for <br />future septic needs. <br />Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot coverage increasing from <br />13.5% to 18.1%. He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed. <br />Perry said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. <br />iMabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he <br />was going to convert the original garage space to living space. Perry said he did not do so <br />as he and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned. He <br />acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls. <br />Schroeder asked if the applicant was going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. <br />Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the <br />tuck -under garage, one is being restored, and bikes and the like are sitting outside of the <br />detached garage. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize <br />structure for a small lot. Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. <br />The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this <br />would be allowed and no variances needed. Mabusth said side setback variance would <br />still be required. Any structure placed in front of the principal structure requires a <br />variance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving <br />materials stored outside. Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now. The <br />applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as <br />well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. Mabusth asked the applicant <br />about the power pole. Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.