07/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continued) no oversize accessory structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f. would be considered as oversized. The concern was the mass and bulk of structures on properties, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. The visual impacts of the combined structure are potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage, resulting in a rear southwest-facing facade nearly 70' long, which will be visible to anyone entering Orono on Highway 12. The City has a 10' building-to- building separation requirement not only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. While staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and the potential locations for such structure are limited because this is a wooded corner lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessory buildings total 1844 s.f. The property is allowed up to 2000 s.f. of accessory structures in total, but no individual accessory structure over 1000 s.f. Connecting them with an 11' x (8'?10'?12'?) greenhouse-style structure would not be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and would potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid. Gaffron reviewed the staff recommendations for: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more storage and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, required setbacks, sewage system location,wetlands and topography. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be in conflict with the intent of the OAS ordinance. c) Planning Commission should determine whether any vegetative screening should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allowing the structure in a location nearer the side street lot line than would normally be allowed. Ms. Thompson stated that, since beginning their plans for a garage, the setbacks have changed from 20'-50'. She indicated that they proposed to construct a greenhouse between the existing and new garage in an effort to enhance and maintain the area between the two buildings. With regard to screening, Thompson stated that there are pine trees to the side of the property. Although she and her husband wished to submit plans for the entire proposal, including the pool, she felt as though she had not been given clear direction from staff as to what was required. Chair Smith noted that the pool was not part of this formal application. Hawn suggested the Commission table the application in order to give the applicants time to meet with staff and add the pool request to the submittal. Gaffron stated that the City sent a letter to the applicants on June 26 requesting more information PAGE 23 of 37