Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 22, 2005 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(#05-3084 James and Patricia Olson, Continued) <br />however, reconm1end approval of a front yard setback variance of 77 feet, which would not increase the <br />existing non-conforming front yard setback. Gundlach noted the applicant would have to redesign the <br />garage to achieve a 77 feet setback. <br />Mr. Olson indicated in discussions with his builder and other contractors that the reconm1ended option <br />was to constrnct the garage in this manner and that there are potential water damage issues if the design <br />is changed. <br />Kempf inquired whether it was reconm1ended to relocate the windows. <br />Olson indicated that was the recommendation. <br />Ralm inquired whether the garage is 30 feet front to back. <br />Olson stated it is. <br />Ralm questioned whether the length of the garage could be shortened. Rahn stated he is unsure where <br />the peak lines up with the windows but that in his opinion there are a number of options that the <br />applicant has. Rahn noted the Plaiming Commission has consistently not allowed further <br />encroaclm1ents. Ralm reiterated in his view it could be redesigned. <br />Leslie conunented the garage could be angled. <br />Olson stated the rationale for going the direction they are proposing is to avoid the need to remove tlu·ee <br />large pine trees. <br />Rahn asked for public comment on this application. <br />There were no public conunents. <br />Kempf stated it is unlikely that the Planning Commission would allow continued encroachment and that <br />there are a number of options that the applicant could consider for this project. Kempf stated in his view <br />it does not appear likely that the Planning Conm1ission would allow the garage to be constrncted toward <br />the stTeet any further than the existing setback. <br />Olson inquired whether a 24 by 24' garage would be an option. <br />Leslie stated in his opinion there are a number of options the applicant could employ without further <br />encroaching into the setback. <br />Olson indicated the house met the setbacks at the time it was constructed and questioned whether there <br />is any grandfathering allowed. <br />PAGE 10