Laserfiche WebLink
MTNUTES OF THE <br /> . ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18, 2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3105 Peter Martinson, Continued) <br /> 3. A variance for left side yard setback of 9.2 feet where a 10-foot setback from the adjacent <br /> property line is normally req�iired; and <br /> 4. Lot width and lot area variances. <br /> Curtis stated the applicant is proposing what is depicted in Plan D. <br /> Staff reconunends approval of the lot area and lot width variances and denial of the side yard setback <br /> variance and denial of the structural coverage variance. Should the Planniiig Commission deterniine that <br /> there is a hardship inherent to the size of the 75'-250' area with respect to allowable hardcover, a <br /> reasonable hardcover variance should be discussed. <br /> Martinson stated he would be willing to reduce the garage and deck and driveway somewhat to decrease <br /> the amount of structural coverage and hardcover on the lot. Martinson indicated the current house is three <br /> feet off the neighbor's property. Martinson stated he has explored a number of different options in an <br /> effort to make the house confornling as possible. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the setback could be 10 feet. <br /> Martinson stated it used to be 3.2 and he is proposing 9.2. <br /> Rahn pointed out on new consiruction the house should be made as confornung as possible. Rahn stated <br /> the main issue is the side setback and the structural coverage. Rahn noted the proposed structural <br /> caverage is I6.7 percent. <br /> Martinson stated he was not aware of the limit on structural coverage until today. <br /> Rahn inquired what the elevation of the deck is. <br /> Martinson stated the deck would be over the first set of windows. <br /> Ralu-i noted since this is a walkout,it would be coming off of the first floor. Rahn suggested reducing the <br /> sh•uctural coverage. Rahn inquired if the applicant is agreeable to reducing the structural coverage to 15 <br /> percent,whether this application should come back before the Plaiuiing Commission. <br /> Gaffron indicated the hardcover would cliange. <br /> Ralm stated the P1amling Coirmlission is able to only act oii what is before them. <br /> Bremer stated the side yard setback also should be brought into conformance. <br /> Leslie stated the issues are the structural coverage and side yard setback, which could be verified by Staff <br /> prior to bringing it back Uefore the Planning Commission. <br /> PAGE 27 <br />