Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 10 of 28  <br />  <br /> <br />The applicants are requesting approval of structural coverage, hardcover and setback variances to <br />construct a new detached garage to be set back 20 feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage <br />will meet a 10-foot setback from both sides. The property is conforming with respect to hardcover <br />currently. However, in order to move the garage further from the street, additional driveway is needed. <br />The applicants are requesting 27.3 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. <br /> <br />In addition, the applicants are proposing to keep an adjacent off street parking area next to the detached <br />garage and have proposed a reduced 11-foot wide parking space with the additional driveway. The <br />existing stairs accessing the property from the street/garage area will be reconstructed in a similar location <br />on the northwest side of the driveway but will be moved out of the right-of-way. <br /> <br />The current structural coverage is 14.7 percent where 15 percent is allowed. The existing garage is a 20’ <br />x 20’ two-car garage. The new garage will be a total of 23 feet wide and 24 feet deep on the garage level <br />and 23 feet wide by 22 feet deep on the lower storage level, which adds 506 square feet. The additional <br />two feet of depth on the garage level is proposed to be achieved with a cantilevered floor. According to <br />the definition of “building footprint,” because it is greater than four feet above grade, the cantilevered <br />area in this situation does not count toward the building footprint or hardcover. Even so, the 22’ x 23’ <br />garage footprint will result in the property being over on structural coverage by about 100 square feet. <br /> <br />Staff finds that the existing situation is less than ideal. The applicants’ need to rebuild a deteriorating <br />garage provides them with an opportunity to create a better and safer situation. There are practical <br />difficulties in the width and topography of the lot as well as the proximity of the existing garage to the <br />rear property line. <br /> <br />The size of the existing garage is not functional. The applicants are attempting to construct a garage <br />which will accommodate reasonable storage space for two vehicles. The variances for 27.3 percent <br />hardcover and the structural coverage to permit 100 plus square feet of structure over 15 percent may also <br />be reasonable considering the existing constraints of the property and alternate available solutions such as <br />extensive filling and grading, tree removal, etc., which could potentially alter the character of the <br />immediate area. The applicants’ request is reasonable and is consistent with the character of the <br />neighborhood. It also results in minimal negative impact to the neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Staff received comment from the neighboring property owners today and those have been distributed to <br />the Planning Commissioners. Staff noted an inconsistency today between the survey and the plans for the <br />garage and parking area. The applicants’ plan indicates there is to be additional hardcover on the south <br />side of the garage that is not shown as proposed on the survey. Further, there are areas of hardcover that <br />are not accurately reflected on the survey. The applicant should be directed to resolve the inconsistencies <br />prior to moving forward. Planning Staff recommends tabling the application. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead and pointed out the location of the proposed garage. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked how many inconsistencies Staff found on the survey. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated there were two or three. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if one of the inconsistencies is the set of stairs that is proposed to be removed. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 10 of 28]