02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wcdaesday, jMiaary 22,2002 0:30 o'clock p.m. (M2-2tS9 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, CooltaocO) Chapul reported that the applicants are requesting lot area, uidth, and setback wiances in order to construct a new house in the same location as a house exists today on the property. In order to rebuild a home on this property within the same dimensions as previously granted, variances would be needed for side yard setbacks, 11* to the south and 1 9.3* to the north where 30* is required, a kit width variance for 100.28* where 200* is required, and lot area variances allowing 1 .34 acres where 2 acres are required. In 1993, Resolution #3231 permitted the applicants to construct additions to the existing liome with side yard setbacks of 19.3* to the north and 12.7* to the south where 30* is required after two parcels were corribined to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Chaput explained that, by current Zoning Ordinance, the existing house is non-conforming and any new structure should be constructed as close to conformity as possible. The proposed plan eliminates a detached garage, which is currently situated over the lot line and onto the nei^boring property and proposes an attached garage 10’ from the lot line. Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be pan of the principal structure, requiring a 30* setback instead of 11* for a detached garage. Chaput identified 7 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and stated that if the Commission felt the applicant should be able to maintain the setbacks permined from presiously approved variances on the property to construct a new house, the application should be granted. However. Chaput stated, if the Commission felt that the new house should be built to meet the required side yard setbacks and not set a precedent for future redevelopment in the area, the application should be tabled to allow the applicant to present an altered plan. Hawn a -ked if the shed by the lake was ever permitted. Bichanich indicated that the shed had been existing on the site when they purchased the property. Chaput pointed out that it was acknowledged in the 1993 Resolution that it was existing non-conforming and that it could be looked at in the future. Chair Smith asked what the shed was used for. Bichanicli stated that he used it mostly for lake storage of water equipment and toys. Mabusth slated that the applicant should be advised that, to be consistent w ith what's been done in the past with new construction, the City asks that the non-conforming strxictures within the lakcshore vard be removed. Chair Smith added that the applicant could investigate a lock box in lieu of the storage shed. There were no public commenu. Chair Smith asked the Commission where they stood w ith regard to lot area and lot width vanances. as these are usually something that cannot be altered easily. Mabusth stated that this lot has more area than the three remaining lots on the street. PAGE 9 of 29