Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (10. #04-3036DURABILT ASSOCIATES,INC. ON BEHALF OF JAMES BROOKS,3785 <br /> WATERTOWN ROAD, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING- <br /> Continued) <br /> Mr. Brooks commented that it is important to enhance their garage space from a one-stall garage but <br /> it is impossible to move the proposed garage any further as it would then cover the existing kitchen <br /> window. Mr. Kasprzah explained the garage dimensions would be 24' x 24' and they had tried to <br /> generally meet a 10' side yard setback. They wanted to avoid a detached garage and the garage <br /> placement was determined, in part, due to the lot's steepness in the center, driveway location and <br /> wanting to limit hardcover. <br /> Discussion followed on other potential garage locations and their effects on loss of more trees, the <br /> need for a retaining wall if the 6' side space would shift to the rear wall, and impacts of the <br /> turnaround area size and orientation to the garage's location and increases in hardcover. <br /> Bremer stated she disagreed with staff's recommendation for denial as she believed the narrowness of <br /> the lot is a valid hardship. <br /> Kempf asked the applicant if the existing garage was planned to be removed. Mr. Brooks replied the <br /> existing garage would be retained for additional storage area. He indicated he wanted to get rid of the <br /> other two existing accessory buildings. <br /> Leslie concurred with Bremer that the long, narrow lot is a hardship and suggested the applicant <br /> consider a garage width of 22' not 24' to minimize the side yard setback encroachment. Kempf <br /> agreed with Leslie and Bremer regarding the lot shape being a hardship and indicated he would <br /> support approval of a compromise garage size. Mr. Brooks indicated that a 22' width would be better <br /> than a 20' width. <br /> Fritzler asked the applicant how long the property was owned by him, and Mr. Brooks replied the <br /> property was purchased in 1983. Fritzler commented that he thought the kitchen window could be <br /> shifted or a skylight added to accommodate moving the garage away from the side yard setback <br /> encroachment. He mentioned that redesigning the garage to have the storage on the rear wall would <br /> allow the garage width to be narrower. <br /> Commissioner Kempf remarked that he thought the kitchen was valuable and should be retained for <br /> lighting and safety purposes. <br /> Chair Rahn pointed out that he thought the matter was more of a design issue and agreed with staff's <br /> recommendation. <br /> Jurgens concurred that it was a design issue and initiated discussion of the rationale for the 50' side <br /> yard setback in the five-acre zone, asking if emergency vehicles could move through the 10' setback. <br /> Mr. Brooks replied the side yard area was level and there is an open field adjacent to the property. <br /> Berg agreed that this is a hardship lot due to its extreme length and narrow width and preferred to <br /> recommend approval of a compromise setback, but would support the variance request as is. Leslie <br /> indicated that he concurred with Berg's comment. <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br />