My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2023 2:42:56 PM
Creation date
10/4/2023 2:29:51 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
470
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 <br />(#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) <br />Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of Willow. The applicant <br />had previously received approval for a setback variance for a garage located in front of the <br />principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a S' side <br />setback. The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front of <br />the principal structure. The existing garage was placed 6.4' from the side lot line. With <br />the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to <br />more restrictive area and setback standards. The .62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s.f of <br />oversized accessory structure. The proposed garage would require an area variance of 77 <br />s.f or 7.7%. The structure would now require a setback of 30' and is proposed at 6.4'. <br />Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true. There are <br />steep topographies on the lot. The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence. The only <br />gentle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for <br />future septic needs. <br />Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot cov^ge increasing from <br />13.5% to 18.1%. He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed. <br />Peny said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. <br />Mabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he <br />was going to convert the original garage space to living space. Perry said he did not do so <br />as he and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned. He <br />acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls. <br />Schroeder asked if the applicant was going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. <br />Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the <br />tuck'under garage, one is being restored, and bikes and the like are sitting outside of the <br />detached garage. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize <br />structure for a small lot. Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. <br />The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this <br />would be allowed and no variances needed. Mabusth said side setback variance would <br />still be required. Any structure placed in front of the principal structure requires a <br />variance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving <br />materials stored outside. Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now. The <br />applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as <br />well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. Mabusth asked the applicant <br />about the power pole. Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.