Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ' ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, OctoUer 17,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3157 Martlia Mason, Conti�►ued) <br /> Rahn stated he is in agreement with Coininissioner Pritzler and pointed out that the example cited by <br /> Commissioner Leslie was a one-story garage addition. Rahn stated if the second story were set back, it is <br /> likely it would be approved. <br /> Mason stated the plans and elevations show a minimal change in character and funetion,with the <br /> fiuictions of the infi•astructure, such as mechanical pltimibing and the interior stairway,being kept intact. <br /> Mason stated to set the second story back would be a hardship that would compromise both the <br /> practicality and fiuiction of the house. <br /> Kempf stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leslie,noting in that similar application the <br /> contractor constructed the house slightly crooked on the lot and that the Planning Commission does not <br /> necessary need to restrict the project because of that fact. Kempf stated the encroachment is insignificant <br /> and that he would be willing to approve the application. <br /> Bremer stated it is important in her opinion that this project does not have a huge visual impact,noting <br /> that there is not a house located directly across the street from this residence. Bremer commented the <br /> neighbor to the west appears to have a deck that is closer than the 50 feet to the road. Brenler indicated <br /> she would not approve the pergola. <br /> Fritzler conunented that this might be the easiest way to do what the ap�licant would like to do but that he <br /> has not been convinced that there is a hardship for the variance. <br /> Mason stated in addition to the functional hardships and practical hardships,if the addition is required to <br /> be stepped back to meet the front yard setback,the screen porch would be compromised in terms of light <br /> and ventilation. Mason stated the screen porch is an existing structure. <br /> Fritzler stated light,ventilation and view do not constitute a hardship. <br /> Bremer stated hardships typically are considered inherent to the land. Bremer stated the other application <br /> was less of a visible encroachment and was only one story but that Coirnnissioner Leslie has made a good <br /> point. <br /> Bremer inoved,Kempf secouded,to recomn�end approval of Application#05-3157,Martha T. <br /> Mason on bel�alf of Sara Moos, 2160 Webber Hills Road,granting of a front yard setback varia�ice <br /> to allow construction of zn addition to the home,and to recommend denial of the pergola. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Fritzler Opposed. <br /> Bremer suggested updating the plan to show the removal of the pergola. <br /> PAGE 21 <br />