06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ressler said generally the Commission likes to see an improvement of the existing structure setbacks, the existing garage is demonstrative of that. He does not disagree with Staff that there is a reasonable building envelope. He believes 48 feet is the width of a reasonable building envelope and asked if that is correct. Curtis noted she said that the building envelope is 40 by 80. Ressler would not be in support of the application as applied; however for where this application may go afterward, he would like to be on record that he probably would be supportive of the garage part of the structure to go outside of the building envelope. He does not know that he would be supportive of encroaching on the rear setback as a variance from the building envelope. He does not know how supportive he would be on the house itself exceeding in any direction; if it were to go any direction he would perhaps be agreeable going front. Kirchner noted Ressler sees the value in improving the garage location but is not in support of the applicant encroaching in other areas. Ressler agreed. He thinks there is precedence identified because the current garage is already outside the building envelope quite extensively and they are improving that position in having the attached garage be part of a proposed structure. Moving the garage farther away also adds hardcover so they must be cognizant. If they can keep the house mostly or entirely within the building envelope he would be supportive of the garage exceeding the building envelope. Curtis asked if that would mean getting the sun room out of the rear setback and leaving the rest as-is. Ressler said it looks like the front of the lot where the garage is, he would be agreeable to exceeding that building envelope. Right now it looks like it is applied to exceed the building envelope (house and garage). He would not be agreeable to that much of an encroachment. Gettman noted they are saying because of the practical difficulties they are willing to have the garage go outside the envelope which by definition is saying that this is not buildable. It is not reasonable for them to have that 40 foot space – it just does not work for any kind of set up. He suggested giving the applicant feedback with the partial approval as opposed to just denying the application completely. Kirchner clarified the Commission is not here to redesign for the applicant, and regardless of the outcome at the Commission it will go before the City Council and they will make the ultimate determination of approval or denial. This discussion is feedback for the applicant and a recommendation for the Council. Kirchner agrees with Ressler; 40x80 allows for about a 3,200 square foot footprint which he thinks is reasonable and there are ways that can be done to still build a home and have use of that. He is a little torn on the garage, depending on how things would be aligned; he thinks some work can be done and he would not be supportive of this as applied today. Erickson would support the Staff report. With the 40x80 building envelope and rotating the building, it would bring it closer to fitting in the City’s ordinance, those are two good reasons for denial at this point. Erickson moved, Ressler seconded, to deny LA21-000032 Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr, Variances. Ressler asked Gettman if he would move to partially approve.