09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMday, Aaf«« 2004 6:00 o*dock p.m. (m-3044 leaairer Sinoa, coadancd) Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like her afi^Iication ubied. Simon slated she would prefer not to table the application. Simon comoKnted if the addition is constructed on the front of the yard, the front is basically ruined. Kempf noted the southw est comer of the lot is the nicest part of the lot. and that if the addition is mos"^ forward and the deck is away from the street, the view from the house is turned towards the more pnvate part of the lot Rahn Staled the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council and that she could plead her case before them. Leslie moved, Jargens secomled, to recommend denial of AppHralion #04-3044, denial of a rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence located at 392S Cherry Avenne. VOTE: Ayes 5, Naya 1, Kempf opposed. 9. #04-3046 ROBERT W. AND BRENDA ZOE MACDONALD, 2400 OLD REACH ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:28 - 8:12 p.m.) Robert MacDonald, Applicant and Tim Kelley. Attomey-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the Applicants Gundlach noted a letter from Mr. Kelley has been distributed to the Planning Commission concerning this application. Gundlach indicated the applicants arc requesting an after-the-fact side yard setback \ariance to permit the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required. The new garage originated by pouring a new slab over the old slab, reusing the mechanical systems, and constructing new walls and a new roof. The new garage is located in the same location as the old garage. Gundlach exp.ained the changes from the old garage to the new garage consist of a steeper pitched roof, a turning of the roof line, and two dormers added to the conforming side of the garage. Gundlach indicated the City has consistently granted variances to property owners in order to maintain their nonconforming structures to match exactly the old structure and also in some cases to make slight naodifications. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission review this application iii one of the two following ways: One. if the Plannmg Commission determines the impro\*ements to the garage consist of improvements to the nonconforming structure, the after-the-fact variance should be approved; or two, if the Ploiming Commission determines the structure has been completely rebuilt, the after-the-fact variance should be denied since the structure could have been relocate^ to meet the 10-foot setback. PAC*: 17