Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,September 23,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #I3-3628 THOMAS POTTER ONBEHALF OFRODNEYAND BARBARA BURWELL, <br /> 1100 MILLSTON ROAD, VARIANCES—RESOL UTION TABLED, Continued) <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the application and a resolution has been drafted for approval by <br /> the City Council. The requirement requires that an as-built survey with as-built hardcover calculations be <br /> prior to the release of the escrow. There are a number of other projects in progess on the property and <br /> Staff feels it is not practical to require one after every project. <br /> McMillan stated she would like the applicant to address the hardship issue and why the structure needs to <br /> be located within the setback. McMillan indicated she does not have an issue with the second structure <br /> but that she has a question why it needs to be built within the setback. If a new garage was built,the <br /> applicants would have reasonable use of the property but that they may not be able to get four stalls. <br /> Since it is a secondary garage, she personally has some concerns about encroaching into the side setback <br /> even though it is a larger lot and the structure would be screened. <br /> Levang indicated she had the same questions. <br /> Potter stated the current garage faces the same direction and the new structure faces the other direction. <br /> The layout relates to the turnaround space that is available. The smaller detached garage will be removed. <br /> The property owner requires additional storage,which was the reason for requesting the additional space. <br /> McMillan commented it is unfortunate the application has gotten this far in the process without someone <br /> raising the issue of whether it is a practical difficulty. McMillan stated having a garage is a reasonable <br /> use but the fact that it is an oversized accessory structure that encroaches into the side setback is a <br /> concern. <br /> McMillan stated in her view it is not a practical difficulty with the land but more so a convenience for the <br /> homeowners. McMillan stated she understands why the applicants do not want to shorten the garage up <br /> too much since it would limit a person's ability to park a car. <br /> Potter indicated originally they thought about constructing it a little bigger but then they decided they <br /> could get by with 24 feet,which is about the minimum depth for a garage. <br /> McMillan stated her main concern is having an oversized structure encroaching into the setback when <br /> there is a fair amount of property available. McMillan stated she understands the need for placing the <br /> garage in that location for convenience sake but that perhaps the garage could be reduced in size and be <br /> conforming to the setback. McMillan commented the Council attempts to be fair and requires smaller <br /> properties to comply with the setbacks as well. <br /> Potter stated he understands. <br /> Levang asked if any other configuration was considered. <br /> Potter stated given the number of stalls the applicant would like and given his inability to get around <br /> physically,he preferred to have it close to the house,which resulted in this proposed location. Potter <br /> noted they are not really adding much additional hardcover since they will be removing the existing <br /> smaller detached garage and that they hoped that would be given consideration for encroaching into the <br /> setback. <br /> Page 3 of 11 <br />