10-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 15,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, Continued) While Gaflfron acknowledged that Conditions 4 and 5 were met, he indicated that Condition 3 was not met. He recommended that the Planning Commission review Conditions 1 and 2 with the applicant to determine w hethcr they were also met. In addition, Gaffron believed it should be noted that the Council has granted a number of Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUPs for properties less than 2 acres in recent years, and as recently as last week. Gaf&on explained that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure, subject to the code restrictions on use of that structure: - cannot be used for a home occupation unless allowed by home occupation ordinances - cannot be used as a dwelling unit unless Guest house CUP is obtained • cannot be rented, leased, or otherwise provided for use as dwelling. In addition, staff recommends that concurrent removals of excess hardcover be required as proposed, to result in a final hardcover not exceeding the site’s hardcover allotment of 7530 s.f for the area between 0-250'. Note that the unused hardcover allowance in the 250-500' zone cannot be transferred to zones closer to the lake. Rahn questioned whether the proposed bathroom constituted a Vi or V* bath. Gaffron felt the code defined it as a half bath configuration. Chair Smith asked the applicant to explain the purpose of the building. A self proclaimed ‘career remodeler’, Martineau stated that his family arrangements had recently changed and required him to create more livable space in his home. He noted that the lower level living area has ceiling heights of merely 6 ’ and that the 2 bedroom home does not offer adequate room for a family. He stated that the proposed addition workout room would be for his use to free up the small bedroom in the home. He indicated that, unfortunately, he was misinformed by what constitutes an accessory space versus a guest house and would be more than willing to omit the kitchenette from the design. As if trying to piece together a puzzle, Martineau admitted that he has undergone numerous construction projects over the years in an effort to improve his property. He stated that he would remove the circle driveway in order to meet hardcover restrictions, which would not be necessary as part of the new design and driveway setup anyway. Chair Smith reiterated that limitations exist to prohibit the addition from becoming an ' apartment for his children in the future. She felt this would not be inconsistent to what has been allowed in the past. PAGE 6 of 25