06-26-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) residence significanlly closer to the street than the residences surrounding it. Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not exceed what is allowed for structural coverage and meets the hardcover requirements since the property is located within the shoreland setback area. The Applicant has indicated a hardship due to the growing demands of his family and the need for additional living space as well as the proposed location of the addition being the most logical place for the addition. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances to permit additional structure ahead of the existing setback due to the encroachment into the front yard setback and enhancement of a non-conforming building. Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence iri order to allow room for a dining area, which his present residence does not have. Kemna stated his daughter is visually impaired and is in need of a lab setup ct home, and due to the small size of the bedrooms, they need to add additional living space to the residence. Kemna indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who are not opposed to the addition. Kemna stated they are proposing the addition in this location to avoid the necessity of rearranging their entire floor plan by going out the back of the house. Kemna stated he would like to expand his garage in an effort to avoid the need for a storage shed. Smith commented the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to be able to address his needs, but noted the Applicant will need to address City Staffs concerns. Kemna stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the encroachment. Kemna indicated he has no! had any plans prepared due to the costs involved. Kemna stated his residence is located at the end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted his property was originally constructed in 1932. Smith recommended the Applicant consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated he is in agreement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the house. Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to compromise on the size of the structure. Lindquist stated in his view any addition to the house would need to be constructed at the rear of the house in order to preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and to avoid having a residence located significantly closer to the road than the surrounding residences. Lindquist suggested the Applicant discuss Staffs recommendations with his builder. Kemna indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his house, he would be forced to change his entire floor plan. Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indif'^ted »vGuld hac Page 5 * 4