08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continvcd) no oversize accessory structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f. would be considered as oversized. The concern was the mass and bulk of structures on propcnics, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. The visual impacts of the combined structure arc potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage, resulting in a rear southwest-facing facade nearly 70' long, which will be visible to an>-onc entering Orono on Highway 12. The City has a 10' building-to- building separation requirement not only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. While staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and tl«c potential locations for such structure are Fruited because this is a wooded comer lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessory’ buildings total 1844 s.f The property is allowed up to 2(XX) s.f. of accessory’ stmcturcs in total, but no individual accessory stmeture over 1000 s.f. Connecting them with an 11* x (8710712*?) greenhouse-style structure would not be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and would potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid. GafTron reviewed the staff recommendations for; a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more storage and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, required setbacks, sewage sy’stem location, wetlands and topography. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be in conflict w ith the intent of the OAS ordinance. c) Planning Commission should dctemiine whether any vegetative screening should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allow ing the stmeture in a location nearer the side street lot line than would nomially be allowed. Ms. Thoripson slated that, since beginning their plans for a garage, the setbacks have changed from 20'-50'. She indicated that they proposed to constmet a greenhouse between the existing and new garage in an eflbrt to enhance and maintain the area between the two buildings. With regard to screening. Thompson stated that there are pine trees to the side of the property. Although she and her husband w ished to submit plans for the entire proposal, including the pool, she felt as though she had not been given clear direction from staff as to w hat w as required. Chair Smith noted that the pool was not part of this formal application. Hawn suggested the Commission table the application in order to give the applicants lime to meet with stalT and add the pool request to the submittal. GafTron stated that the City sent a letter to the applicants on June 26 requesting more information PAGE 23 of 37