Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3800, <br /> Whitney and Elizabeth MacMillan, 1560 Fox Street, and Conley and Carol Brooks, 1640 Fox <br /> Street,vacation of perimeter drainage and utility easements in conjunction with lot line <br /> rearrangement, subject to receiving DNR approval being received prior to bringing it before the <br /> City Council,and further subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 7. #16-3801 CARL AND CAREN BORG,3414 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:38 <br /> P.M.—7:49 P.M. <br /> Carl and Caren Borg, Applicants, were present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for front street setback, structure-to-structure <br /> setback, and to allow an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure in order to <br /> construct a new 20' x 20' detached garage. <br /> The applicants have owned the existing residence since 2001 and propose to construct a 20' x 20' <br /> detached 2-stall single-story garage. The property currently does not have a garage. The property is <br /> considered a corner lot. The proposed garage will be located just southeast of the house, 25 feet from the <br /> street lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. The garage would also be located approximately 13 <br /> feet nearer the street than the house. The minimal garage size and proposed location allow for the garage <br /> to meet the 15-foot required side street setback from Shadywood Lane. The proposed garage will be <br /> approximately eight feet from the deck platform where a 10-foot setback between structures is required. <br /> Gaffron noted the triangular lot shape,the small size of the lot, and the existing house and deck location <br /> make it difficult to locate a detached garage meeting all required setbacks. Gaffron noted the hardcover <br /> will be at 26 percent, with a maximum of 35 percent being allowed. Structural coverage is also not an <br /> issue. If the garage were to be attached to the house,the deck would need to be removed. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If the Planning Commission determines that the <br /> practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified,then a recommendation for approval would <br /> be in order. <br /> Landgraver asked if the garage would be in the same basic location as the parking pad. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be. <br /> Carl Borg, Applicant, asked if the purpose of the survey to describe the end result of the total project. <br /> Borg stated his understanding was that the survey would show him where a garage could be located. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would be required to submit two surveys: one survey showing the current conditions <br /> and one after the improvements are completed. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicant has submitted both of those. Exhibit B shows the existing conditions and <br /> Exhibit C shows the proposed garage. <br /> Borg stated the post condition depicted on the survey is not what they envisioned as the final product and <br /> that they were not aware that that was what they needed to do. Borg stated he can describe what they <br /> Page 11 of 30 <br />