My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-2021 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2020-2024
>
2021
>
05-10-2021 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/25/2021 1:53:17 PM
Creation date
5/25/2021 1:52:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 10,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES RESOLUTION <br /> NO. 7197—Continued <br /> Mark Prueter noted the garage is estimated to be built in the 1970's and is a block foundation with a wood <br /> parking level on the second floor and the integrity is declining. He noted the rear yard creates some <br /> challenges and his goal is to build a new structure and improve the integrity,manage the setbacks <br /> favorably, and build an aesthetic structure that matches the neighborhood and is in conformance with the <br /> house. <br /> Crosby asked to see pictures of the existing garage. <br /> Johnson drove by the property and in comparing what he saw with the drawing,he noticed some <br /> increasing in massing of the height and then he learned it is bigger. Because it is in a non-conforming <br /> location, if they want to take advantage of its location being non-conforming,then increasing of the <br /> massing is not allowed.That is what he would like to discuss. <br /> Curtis showed a drawing on screen and said it is not the footprint size of the existing garage as that is <br /> getting a bit larger; she showed the height difference in the drawing. She noted the garage is currently <br /> more than conforming on the west side with 7.5 foot setbacks and the applicant has opted to encroach on <br /> the west side. She believes the property owner to the west is comfortable with that but she did not speak <br /> with them. The applicant is proposing to meet the side setback on the east where it was previously very <br /> close to the lot line. <br /> Walsh asked the width of the lot in the front. <br /> Prueter thinks it is 35 feet. <br /> Walsh said generally speaking for the garage it is 35 feet wide with 7.5 feet setbacks on each side which <br /> would give a 2 car garage. <br /> Mr. Prueter replied yes,that is what they currently have. It is 20 feet wide and is extremely tight for two <br /> moderate vehicles. <br /> Crosby asked a normal width on a two car garage. <br /> Johnson replied a garage door is 16 feet wide. <br /> Mr. Prueter noted they are proposing a 22 foot wide garage with an 18 foot wide door. <br /> Johnson noted they reduced setbacks from 10 to 7.5 to avoid variances. In this case,if they want to keep <br /> the non-conforming location,then they cannot mass them and make them bigger.They must use the same <br /> existing footprint. If one switches the location,people have come into conformity then on other garages. <br /> The Council has not allowed them to get bigger and not conform. <br /> Page 4 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.