Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2769 MARK AND PAMELA PALM,Continued) <br /> A number of factors make construction of a new garage that conforms in location difficult, assuming the <br /> same side-loading garage with the same driveway configuration. Weinberger suggested that one <br /> possibility might be to explore turning the garage to have the garage doors face Park Drive and locate the <br /> building in the center of the property. This option would require some fill be brought in. <br /> Weinberger stated that staff believes a garage could be constructed on the property meeting a greater <br /> setback than the 1.3' and still provide an adequate area to maneuver a vehicle on the property. For this <br /> reason, staff does not support the granting of variances to reconstruct and expand a garage located only <br /> 1.3' from the side property line. The proposed 840' s.f.requires a minimum setback of 15'. The lot <br /> averages 60' in width where a garage would be constructed and staff feels no hardship has been <br /> identified. <br /> Mr.Palm stated that the second story of the garage will be used for storage. He indicated that every <br /> winter they have difficulty getting out of the driveway without a running start due to the position and <br /> slope of the driveway. This is a dangerous situation, and to move the driveway, would eliminate the <br /> ability to turn around at all and place the sidewalk behind the garage. <br /> There were no public comments relating to this application. <br /> Smith stated that while she empathizes with the relandscaping issues, she questioned the possibility of <br /> turning the garage enough to compromise and allow it to be off the side yard while giving them enough <br /> turn around room for winter driving. <br /> Weinberger maintained that the slope issue exists no matter which way the garage faces,the applicant still <br /> needs to move off the line further than 1.3'. <br /> Hawn asked whether the garage could be moved closer to the road. <br /> Weinberger stated that the garage is already 30 feet off the road. <br /> Mabusth stated that obviously further modification will be required. She suggested revising the structure <br /> to be no more than 750 s.f., although the side yard issue would still exist. She questioned further the <br /> possibility of adding fill. <br /> Weinberger indicated that while a neighbor's yard had required a great deal of fill,this one may not <br /> require quite that much. <br /> PAGE 6 <br />