Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. JULY 19,2004 <br />6:00 o*clock p.m. <br />(It. l!t4-3tMDURABU.T ASSOCIATES, INC. ON BEHALF OF JAMES BROOKS, 37tS <br />WATERTOWN ROAD, SIDE YARD SE'lDACK VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING- <br />CMtiSMi) <br />Mr. Brooks commented that it is important to enhance their garage space from a one-stall garage but <br />it is impossible to move the proposed garage any further as it would then cover the existing kitchen <br />window. Mr. Kasptzah explained the garage dimensions would be 24* x 24* and they had tried to <br />generally meet a 10* side setback. They wanted to avoid a detached garage and the garage <br />placement was determine^ in part, due to the lot*s steepness in the center, driveway location and <br />tvanting to limit hardcover. <br />Discussion followed on other potential garage locations and their effects on loss of more trees, the <br />need for a retaining wall if the 6* side space would shift to the rear wall, and impacts of the <br />turnaround area size and orientation to the garage's location and increases in hardcover. <br />Bremer stated she disagreed with staffs recommendation for denial as she believed the narrowness of <br />the lot is a valid hardship. <br />Kempf asked the applicant if the existing gmge was planned to be removed. Mr. Brooks replied the <br />existing gange would be retained for additional storage area. He indicated he w anted to get rid of the <br />other two existing accessory buildings. <br />Leslie concurred with Bremer that the long, narrow lot is a hardship and suggested the applicant <br />consider a garage width of 22* not 24* to minimize the side yard setback encroachment. Kempf <br />agreed with Leslie and Bremer regarding the lot shape being a hardship and indicated he would <br />siqrport approval of a compromise garage size. Mr. Brooks indicated that a 22* width would be better <br />than a 20* width. <br />hritzlcr asked the applicant how long the property was owned by him. and Mr. Brooks replied the <br />property was purchased in 1983. Fritzler commented that he thought the kitchen window could be <br />shifted or a skylight added to accommodate moving the garage away from the side yard setback <br />encroachment. He mentioned that redesigning the garage to have the storage on the rear wall would <br />allow the garage width to be narrower. <br />Commissioner Kempf remarked that he thought the kitchen was valuable and should be retained for <br />lighting aiMl safety purposes. <br />Chair Rahn pointed out that he thought the matter was more of a design issue and agreed with staffs <br />recommendation. <br />Jurgeiu concurred that it was a design issue and initiated discussion of the rationale for the 50* side <br />>’ard setback in the five-acre zone, asking if emergency vehicles could move through the 10* setback. <br />Mr. Brooks replied the side yard area was level and there is an open field adjacent to the property. <br />Berg agreed that this is a hardship lot due to its extreme length and narrow %vidth and preferred to <br />iccomroend approval of a compromUe setback, but would support the variance request as is. Leslie <br />indicated that he concurred with Berg's comment. <br />Page 11 of 13