Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner noted Ressler sees the value in improving the garage location but is not in support of the <br /> applicant encroaching in other areas. <br /> Ressler agreed.He thinks there is precedence identified because the current garage is already outside the <br /> building envelope quite extensively and they are improving that position in having the attached garage be <br /> part of a proposed structure.Moving the garage farther away also adds hardcover so they must be <br /> cognizant. If they can keep the house mostly or entirely within the building envelope he would be <br /> supportive of the garage exceeding the building envelope. <br /> Curtis asked if that would mean getting the sun room out of the rear setback and leaving the rest as-is. <br /> Ressler said it looks like the front of the lot where the garage is,he would be agreeable to exceeding that <br /> building envelope.Right now it looks like it is applied to exceed the building envelope(house and <br /> garage).He would not be agreeable to that much of an encroachment. <br /> Gettman noted they are saying because of the practical difficulties they are willing to have the garage go <br /> outside the envelope which by definition is saying that this is not buildable. It is not reasonable for them <br /> to have that 40 foot space—it just does not work for any kind of set up. He suggested giving the applicant <br /> feedback with the partial approval as opposed to just denying the application completely. <br /> Kirchner clarified the Commission is not here to redesign for the applicant,and regardless of the outcome <br /> at the Commission it will go before the City Council and they will make the ultimate determination of <br /> approval or denial.This discussion is feedback for the applicant and a recommendation for the Council. <br /> Kirchner agrees with Ressler;40x80 allows for about a 3,200 square foot footprint which he thinks is <br /> reasonable and there are ways that can be done to still build a home and have use of that.He is a little torn <br /> on the garage, depending on how things would be aligned;he thinks some work can be done and he <br /> would not be supportive of this as applied today. <br /> Erickson would support the Staff report. With the 40x80 building envelope and rotating the building, it <br /> would bring it closer to fitting in the City's ordinance,those are two good reasons for denial at this point. <br /> Erickson moved,Ressler seconded,to deny LA21-000032 Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr,Variances. <br /> Ressler asked Gettman if he would move to partially approve. <br /> Gettman replied for the certain setbacks.He is willing to have it denied so it can go to Council to hear the <br /> Commission's recommendations. <br /> McCutcheon clarified the applicant has the opportunity to submit another drawing before it goes to <br /> Council. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> 4. LA20-000033 DUPONT CONSTRUCTION OB/O CAROLYN& MASON HARDY, 1579 <br /> MAPLE PLACE,VARIANCES <br /> Carolyn Hardy,Applicant,was present. <br /> Page 8 of 21 <br />