Laserfiche WebLink
MINUIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 <br />{M - #2214 Carmen and Richard Kozickj' - Continued) <br />McNfillan inquired if there would be room for storage in the garage. Kozicky said he <br />allowed 8-9’ for storage of his machinery. <br />Commissioners discussed the amount of stnictural coverage. It was noted that the <br />applicant had revised his plans consistent with the direction given previously by the <br />Commission. <br />Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2214 with the notation <br />that the Planning Commission recommends no further structural coverage be allowed on <br />the property. Vote; Ayes 3, Lindquist, Stoddard, Schroeder; Nays 4, Ha>\-n, Smith, Berg, <br />McMillan. <br />The applicant said he would revise the size of the garage. Stoddard suggested the garage <br />be reduced by 6' in length. <br />It was determined that the prevailing vote may request reconsideration of the application <br />Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to reconsider the application. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2214 subject to a 6' reduction <br />in the size of the garage per the survey and accompanied by a drawng. The structural <br />coverage would be reduced to 19.63%. No additional structural coverage would be <br />allowed on the property. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 2, McMillan, Hawn. Dissenting voters felt <br />a 4% structural coverage variance is too high for a substandard lot. <br />(#5) #2217 JOHN THIMMESH, 1945 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES <br />- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:25-8:37 P.M. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting hardcover variance, structural <br />coverage variance, and a rear yard variance to add a 18'x31' storage addition to the <br />existing garage. The application was tabled at last month's meeting to enable the applicant <br />to consider whether he would combine the two lots. He has agreed to do so. Information <br />provided by the assessor indicates there would be no tax consequence by doing so. This <br />enables the applicant to use the total lot coverage for calculations.