Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3103 Jack and Kari Olson,Continued) <br /> Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3101,Jack and Kari <br /> Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road,to allow a 20' by 20' detached garage subject to the proposed <br /> hardcover reductions in the applicants' revised plan. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 5; Rahn,Jurgens, <br /> Kempf,Fritzler and Winkey opposed. <br /> Winkey moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend denial of Application#05-3103,Jack and Kari <br /> Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road,with the recommendation that any future proposal for a garage <br /> conform with the 1500 structural coverage limit. Ayes 6,Nays 1; Bremer Opposed. <br /> 11. #05-3104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD—VARIANCE, <br /> 9:02 P.M.—9:16 P.M. <br /> David and Renee Mack,Applicants, and Richard Storling,Builder, were present. <br /> Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to remove a detached garage, <br /> construct a garage attached to the house, add footprint additions to the house, and construct a second story <br /> addition over the house and the new attached garage. The following variances are being requested: <br /> 1. A rear yard setback variance for a 10-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required for the <br /> attached garage; and <br /> 2. A hardcover variance for 27 percent within the 0-75' zone and 53 percent within the 75'-250' <br /> zone; and <br /> 3. A structural coverage variance for 24.5 percent structure where 15 percent is normally allowed <br /> and 16 percent currently exists; and <br /> 4. A lake setback variance to expand the house footprint further into the required 75' lake setback, <br /> a 57-foot setback currently exists, and 51 feet is proposed. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the second story additions but recommends denial of the lake setback, <br /> hardcover, and structural coverage variances in order to expand the house footprint more lakeward than <br /> the existing footprint. Should the Planning Commission find that the depth of the lot serves as a hardship <br /> justifying the 10-foot rear yard setback,Planning Staff recommends approval of an attached garage. <br /> Curtis stated the size of the garage as proposed may not be supported by the hardcover and structural <br /> coverage constraints. <br /> Mr. Mack stated they would like to increase their living space to make room for their expanding family. <br /> Rahn stated the biggest issue is the structural coverage on the lot and that the footprint of the structure in <br /> his opinion has to be determined prior to resolving the other issues. <br /> PAGE 25 <br />