08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r L.. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21 ,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, Coiliaiicii) Fritzler belic\'cd the location of the well to be adequate hardship. Gaffron pointed out that the neighbors detached garage is also an issue. There were no public comments. Mabmlli laovcd, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #€3-2910, Wayne and Anne Johnson, 1229 Lakeslew Avenue, approving a side \ard setback variance for a 15* encroachment into tbe 30* setback. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess was taken from 7:44 - 7:54 P..M.) (#11) #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, 583 PARK LANE, VARIANCE, 7:44 - 8:28 P.M. Gina Hansen, the applicant, was present. 3. 4. Foth reported that the applicants request a variance to construct a 6’ x 20* covered entry located 5 ’ from the side lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required. The variances include: 1 . Decrease structural coverage from 2459.7 s.f (25.9 %) existing to 2439.2 s.f. (25.7%). Net decrease of 20.5 s.f. 2. Encroachment of 5 ’ into Uic required 10 ’ setback. Hardcover in 0-75* to remain at existing I0.3*i where no hardcover is allowed. Decrease hardcover in the 75-250' /one. w ill be reduced from .3641.16 sf(63.3‘Ji) to 3503.16(60.9';.). In summary. Foth staled that staff w ould recommend: a) Denial of setback variance of 5* from side yard as it w ill limit light and air for neighboring property, and w ill adi! to the crowding in the neighborhood. Approval of change in structural coverage amounts (net decrease). Staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the side yard setback and resulting in a further decrease in proposed structural coverage, d) Staff suggests removal of 356 s.f. of landscape beds to further reduce 75 ’-250’ hardcover. Hardship: Staff finds that there is no viable hardship. Applicants arc looking for aesthetic change to facade rather than added space. b) c) Foth provided background, staling that the applicants wish to add a 6’x 20* covered porch on the street side entrance to their home where previously a 6* x 6* platform existed. This porch w ould be located 5* from the side properly line. This proposed encroachment is les» severe than that of the existing home. The home is located 3* from the NW side yard, where a 10* setback is required. With the proposed reductions to existing stairs, and lakeside deck, the proposed porch addition will decrease the structural coverage totals for this property. In addition, the applicants have proposed a 67.5 s.f reduction in their driveway hardcover. PAGE 15 of 37