My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-24-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2021
>
05-24-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2021 4:52:38 PM
Creation date
11/8/2021 4:49:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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 />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 4 of 34 <br /> <br />9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES RESOLUTION <br />NO. 7197 – Continued <br /> <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 /> <br />Crosby asked to see pictures of the existing garage. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Walsh asked the width of the lot in the front. <br /> <br />Prueter thinks it is 35 feet. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Crosby asked a normal width on a two car garage. <br /> <br />Johnson replied a garage door is 16 feet wide. <br /> <br />Mr. Prueter noted they are proposing a 22 foot wide garage with an 18 foot wide door. <br /> <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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.