Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis showed the building envelope on screen that the Code would dictate. <br /> Gettman said where the existing garage is they are not trying to modify the footprint that much but trying <br /> to combine it under one space. He would tend to support this as the practical difficulty of trying to <br /> combine. Switching it the 45 degrees based on this lot,it looks like the area to the south does not <br /> necessarily mean it will fit for any kind of house they are trying to combine the space with. <br /> Bollis thinks Gettman brings up a good point and the 15.3 front yard setback they are asking for it <br /> actually better than the existing one when considering the garage. That being said,he could get behind <br /> this if it was a remodel or addition but this is a completely new house.He does not know if he can support <br /> this; if it was an addition he would support it. <br /> Gettman asked the applicant what renovations he had previously tried to do. <br /> Mr.Azad said the house is close to 100 years old and the basement has a lot of problems. Trying to fix <br /> and remodel was not reasonable and it did not work out. <br /> McCutcheon asked if it is oriented to get a lake view out of the sun room. <br /> Mr.Azad said they are trying to put the house where the old house is and a little bit on the back might be <br /> bigger;that is his understanding from talking with the designer. <br /> McCutcheon asked if the applicant were to re-orient the house,what does Mr. Azad not like about that <br /> design. <br /> Mr.Azad stated there is nothing that he would not like. <br /> Libby asked to clarify in the term"partial approval"what Curtis sees as permissible and positive and can <br /> work within the envelope that would meet the City's ordinance. <br /> Curtis noted they are asking for four variances: lot area, lot width,front, and rear setback. Staff supports <br /> the lot area and lot width variances to develop the lot with a new home. Staff is suggesting that there is an <br /> adequate building envelope to do so not requiring variances. <br /> Ressler said generally the Commission likes to see an improvement of the existing structure setbacks,the <br /> existing garage is demonstrative of that. He does not disagree with Staff that there is a reasonable building <br /> envelope.He believes 48 feet is the width of a reasonable building envelope and asked if that is correct. <br /> Curtis noted she said that the building envelope is 40 by 80. <br /> Ressler would not be in support of the application as applied; however for where this application may go <br /> afterward,he would like to be on record that he probably would be supportive of the garage part of the <br /> structure to go outside of the building envelope. He does not know that he would be supportive of <br /> encroaching on the rear setback as a variance from the building envelope.He does not know how <br /> supportive he would be on the house itself exceeding in any direction; if it were to go any direction he <br /> would perhaps be agreeable going front. <br /> Page 7 of 21 <br />