Laserfiche WebLink
r , <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday, January 20, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#7) #03-2965 SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND <br /> KERSTEN JEVNE, 819 BROWN ROAD NORTH,VARIANCE (7:24-7:38 P.M.) <br /> Scott Sennes, the Applicant, was present. <br /> Curtis explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance in order to <br /> remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage within 24.1' <br /> feet of the side yard where 30' is required. The existing home is on a 1.0 acre property <br /> within a 2 acre zone. The applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home, <br /> adding additional living space while utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the <br /> applicants were requesting a 10.7' setback from the side lot line where 30' is required. <br /> After discussions with staff, the applicants have revised their plan to extend no further into <br /> the side setback than existing resulting in the request for a 24.2' setback where 30' is <br /> required. The requested side yard setback variance of 5.8' is in order to utilize the existing <br /> foundation on the south side of the garage and continue the plane of the garage toward the <br /> rear yard to change the 3-stall front loading to a 2-stall front loading and a 1-stall side <br /> loading garage. The applicants have proposed this change as the result of the meetings <br /> with staff and their hope to minimize hardcover on the lot. <br /> Curtis laid out additional issues for consideration: <br /> 1. Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a '/2 story bonus room above more <br /> intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low <br /> one-story garage? Will either expansion have negative visual impacts? <br /> 2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild, <br /> should it meet all zoning requirements, including setbacks? Under the proposed <br /> ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. <br /> 3. Is the applicants' desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback <br /> considered a hardship? <br /> Curtis stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to <br /> allow a side setback of 24.1' where 30' is required, in order to construct an expanded one- <br /> story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: <br /> 1. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk <br /> envelopes shown on the attached plan. <br /> Mr. Sennes stated that it would be their intent to reuse the existing 12' concrete block <br /> foundation. <br /> Jim Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, interjected that the proposed improvements would be <br /> an enormous upgrade than what's currently there. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the applicant was aware of the position of the <br /> most affected neighbor. <br /> Sennes stated that he had spoken to them and their feedback was favorable. <br /> PAGE 13 of 53 <br />