Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 20, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 2 of 25  <br />  <br />Approval of the requested variance to connect the detached garage to the house would make the now <br />conforming principal structure non-conforming with respect to the front and side yard setbacks. The <br />garage roof changes will result in a further encroachment into the required 10-foot side yard setback for <br />the one-half foot at the north corner of the garage and a slight change in the encroachment on the front. <br />The garage is situated at an angle so that only a small portion, a corner, encroaches into the side setback. <br /> <br />Staff has visited the site and took a number of photos to document how the garage was located with <br />respect to the road, the vegetation, and the topography of the site. While the garage is only set back 6.8 <br />feet from the front property line, Casco Point road is not centered within the right-of-way, which results <br />in a 34-foot setback from the paved roadway. <br /> <br />The applicants are proposing to rotate the orientation of the roof and to raise the peak of the roof ten feet <br />higher than existing. As proposed, the neighboring property owner will see a garage wall and gable end <br />of the garage roof as opposed to the garage wall and portions of roof as they do today. <br /> <br />It is unclear from the plans if the applicants are planning windows or other architectural features in the <br />north-facing gable. There does not appear to be adequate space to install trees or other screening, at least <br />at the northern corner, to minimize the views of the garage. The south-facing gable has a vent at the peak. <br />Inclusion of architectural features or windows along the north wall may break up the view from the <br />adjacent property. there is space available to screen the proposed addition connecting the home and <br />detached garage from the neighboring property. <br /> <br />If this were a lakeshore lot, a detached garage would be permitted generally in the location of the existing <br />garage. The existing home on the property currently conforms to the required setbacks set forth in the <br />LR-1C district. Approving the requested variances will make the home’s location non-conforming. If, in <br />the future, the property owner wishes to replace the existing home in kind, the location of the existing <br />home would be considered a legal in-kind rebuild. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission concludes the applicants’ request is reasonable and meets the practical <br />difficulty criteria for granting a variance, a recommendation for approval should be considered. <br /> <br />Bennett asked if this is the same applicant that requested the original variance. <br /> <br />Curtis asked if the applicants were the owners of the property in 1978. <br /> <br />Coryea indicated they were not. <br /> <br />Devlin stated they would like to improve the appearance of the house as well as make the roof of the <br />garage match the house. Landscaping will also be done around the garage to help improve the <br />appearance. Devlin stated they would also like to construct an addition between the house and the garage <br />to allow for a mud room and bathroom to help accommodate them as they grow older. The master <br />bedroom will also be relocated downstairs. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the applicants are proposing to re-side the garage as well. <br /> <br />Devlin indicated they are. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the garage has frost footings or if it is slab on grade. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013 <br />[Page 2 of 25]