Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, May 15, 2000 <br />(#2579 James Kemna, Continued) <br />residence significantly closer to the street tl-an the residencr" 'jrr jnditig it. <br />Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not exceed what is allowed for structural coverage <br />and meets the hardcover requirements since the property is located within the 'â– horeland setback <br />area. <br />The Applicant has indicated a hardship due to the growing demands of his family and the need for <br />additional living space as well as the proposed location of the addition being the most logical place <br />for the addition. <br />City Staff is recommending denial of the variances to permit additional structure ahead of the <br />existing setback due to the encroachment into the fro.it yard setback and enhancement of a <br />non-conforming building. <br />Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence iri order to allow <br />room for a dining area, which his present residence does not have. Kemna stated his daughter is <br />visually impaired and is in need of a lab setup at ho<rm;, and due to the small size of the bedrooms, <br />they need to add additional living space to the residence. Kemna indicated he has spoken with <br />his neighbors regarding this project, who are not opposed to the addition. <br />Kemna stated they are proposing the addition in this location to avoid the necessity of rearranging^ <br />their entire floor plan by going out the back of the house. Kemna stated he would like to expand his <br />garage in an effort to avoid the need for a storage shed. <br />Smith commented the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to be able to address his <br />needs, but noted the Applicant will need to address City Stafrs concerns. <br />Kern ia stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the <br />encroachment Kemna indicated he nu.-; fv-.-!' nad any plans prepared due to the costs Involved. <br />Kemna stated his residence is located uie end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted <br />his property was originally constructe;? -in 1932. <br />Smith recommended the Applica'it consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. <br />There were no public commentr». <br />Lindquist indicated he is in ag'eement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the <br />house. <br />Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be wil'ing to compromise on the size of <br />the structure. <br />Lindquist stated in his view any adoition to the house would need to be constructed at the rear of the <br />house in order to preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and to avoid having a residence <br />located significantly closer to the road than the surrounding residences. Lindquist suggested the <br />Applicant discuss Staffs recommendations with his builder. <br />Kem' indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his hoir.e, he would he <br />forced to change his untire floor plan. <br />Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indicated she would like <br />Page 5