08-20-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 16,2001 (<K)I>2691 J. Eiic and Christine Menge, Continued) Smith asked about adding on to the back of the house, which might help limit the size of the proposed garage addition and the neighbor’s concerns. She thought the garage may not need to be converted to living space if more were added to the back. The architects indicated there were fairly steep slopes to the back of the house limiting the building area. Stoddard commented that it is important to be cognizant of side setbacks and neigtibor's views. He thought if the garage were not angled, there would be a 25* setback and possibly more living space behind the garage. Blumentritt responded that by angling the garage, more open area is gained with only a comer closer to the neighbor. Lindquist noted there were two setbacks, the front and side yard setbacks. Tlic side yard setback is proposed at 12'. The neighbor to the other side has a setback of appro.ximately 31*. Lindquist stated he would look at a minimum of a 30' side setback for each neighbor and the applicant vsould need to stay within those setbacks in his design. Hawn agreed with Lindquist noting that a SO' setback is required. A setback proposal at 12.7' requires a variance which is too great. Menge asked what the required setbacks arc for a one or two acre zone. Gaffron responded that the one acre zone requires 35' front and rear with 10* on the sides, and the two acre zone is 50' front and rear with 30' on the sides. Menge noted that his lot is a one acre lot and next door is 2 '/z. Hawn commented that his request is a radical departure from the zoning standards. Smith commented that she had the same concerns as Hawn and Lindquist. Stoddard stated that he may be a little more lenient and may allow up to 25' for the side setbacks. Mabusth stated that she had the same concerns and suggested tabling the application with some direction to the applicants. None of the Commissioners w ere concerned with the front or rear setbacks. The side setback is the major issue, especially with the concerns expressed by the neighbor to the north. Hawn commented that tipping the garage may help some but was concerned w ith the impact of headlights on the neighbors. Mabusth commented that using portions of the existing garage to enlarge the garage area would be a good option to pursue. Blumentritt responded that they had looked at those options. The current entry is not safe and using the existing garage as an entry way makes sense with the rest of the layout. Fritzler stated that in redesigning a structure on the existing property, the goal would be not to encroach on the side setbacks any more than necessary. He also suggested shortening the 2 '/: car garage but going deeper to the back of the property so the same square footage would be involved in the additions. PAGE 5