02-13-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m�xlvuT�cs or Tr� _ ORONO PLANNI:NG COMIVITSSION 1�Z�ETXNG Monclay, October 17, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. - (#05-314G 11'.iarl:and Pamela P�lm, Continuecl) 1, A hardcover variance to perrnit 36.58 perceni hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is norn�ally allowed and 37.08 percent currently exists; 2. A hardcover variance to pennit 38.10 percent hardcover withiu the 250'-500' zone where 30 percent is noi�nally allowed and 41.27 percent ctu-rently exists. 3. Side yard setUack variance to pennit a side yard setbacic of�ve feet where 15 feet is nonnally requu�ed for a detached building in excess of 750 square feet and a 1.5-foot setback cuiTently exists. The applicant ap�lied for similar variances in March of 2002 to replace the existing garage with a 24' by 35' garage�vith storage above, Ultimately, approval tivas granted for a 22' by 34' garage and tliat variance approval expired on July 22,2003. Tlie ap�licant then submitted to renew that variance in early SeptemUer 2005; however,upon receipt of the necessary plaiis, it was deternuned that the proposed garage dimensions were changing, causing the hardcover ntimbers to vary slightly and thus requiring review of an entirely new application. No other variances have been applied for or approved for this property in the past. Staff finds the proposal as submitted does not meet tlie spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,nor does it fit within recent a�provals for detached garages on siniilarly substandard lots. White the lot is substandard in area and width and has considerable depth requiring extensive driveway hardcover,which may all be hardships in the desire to obtain a garage,the 32' by 25', two story garage set back five feet from the side lot line is not reasonable based on recent sinularly approved variances. Staff would also argue that the variances approved in 2002 are out of character with the current goals of the Planning Conulussion and City Counci3, and the cun•ent proposal is for an even larger garage, Staff recorruzlends the Plaruzing Coilimission consider the following: I. As tlle property is extensively over on hardcover,it may be more reasonable to allow only a standard 24'by 24' one-story garage. 2. A second story garage would only Ue acce�taUle if all seiback requirements could be met. 3. Would less hardcover Ue required if ihe garage�vez�e designed to front-load and be located right up to the 30 foot rear yard setbacic(z�ather thatl the 35' feet cunei�tly X�roposed)? 4. Would less hardcover be required if the garage remained side-loadin�but was pushed to the 15- fooC setbacic from the sireet azid 10 foot seiback rron�the side lot lii�e. Gundlach noted this neibl�.borllood has experienced drainage problems recently, which have inlpacted the deterioration of the applicant's existing garage, Staff would reconunend that the applicant's revised plan PAGE Z 5