Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, May 15, 2000 <br /> • <br /> (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) <br /> residence significantly closer to the street than the residences surrounding 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 shoreland 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 front yard setback and enhancement of a <br /> non-conforming building. <br /> Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence in 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 home, 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 Staff's concerns. <br /> Kemna stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the <br /> encroachment. Kemna indicated he has not had any plans prepared due to the costs involved. <br /> Kemna stated his residence is located at the end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted <br /> his property was originally constructed in 1932. <br /> Smith recommended the Applicant consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Lindquist indicated he is in agreement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the <br /> house. <br /> Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to compromise on the size of <br /> the structure. <br /> Lindquist stated in his view any addition 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 /> Kemna indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his house, he would be <br /> forced to change his entire floor plan. <br /> • Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indicated she would like <br /> Page 5 <br />