Laserfiche WebLink
' MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated his recommendation is based on the fact that the variance is required due to the existing <br /> garage, and if the existing garage goes away,the applicants should be required to comply with the 25 <br /> percent. <br /> Lemke asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is recommending that they approve the side setback variance if <br /> it exists as it is,and if not,they would need to come back. <br /> Schoenzeit noted Staff indicated they do not feel that would be helpful. <br /> Curtis stated Staff would prefer the Planning Commission speak directly to the request. Curtis stated if <br /> the Planning Commission feels the practical difficulty is sufficient enough to approve the addition,they <br /> should recommend the approval. If not,they should recommend denial or request the applicant modify <br /> their plan to improve upon the setback. <br /> Daly stated if a different addition goes on the south side of the house,the current house is still close to the <br /> setback line. <br /> Curtis noted the house is 17 feet from the property line. <br /> Daly stated it would not make sense for that room to be there then if they have to move it. Daly stated <br /> their goal is to maintain what is there today and that they are requesting permission to attach the addition <br /> to the primary structure. Daly indicated the space is currently a walkway or a sidewalk and that they are <br /> requesting permission to connect those two areas together. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if they find out that the garage does not have frost footings,they will have to tear it <br /> down if they want to connect it to the house. Schoenzeit stated if they end up tearing it down,his <br /> recommendation is that they not put the new structure exactly where the old structure was but instead <br /> make it more compliant with the setback. Schoenzeit stated the only reason why the Planning <br /> Commission is considering the variance is because the garage is where it is. <br /> Daly stated even if it were torn down, as a detached structure they are allowed to rebuild it in kind. Daly <br /> stated their intentions are to try to keep the garage since it has some historical elements. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the code would probably allow them to tear down the garage, rebuild it in place with <br /> frost footings,and then get a variance to connect it to the house since they would have a practical <br /> difficulty. Schoenzeit commented this would short circuit it and basically say it is there. <br /> Landgraver stated that is the end game that is allowable and doable. Landgraver stated he is more <br /> concerned about the hardcover since they are so close to being in compliance. Landgraver stated when <br /> there are complete do-overs, it is hard to grant an exception,but that this is not a complete do-over. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is okay with the side setback variance for the reasons already articulated. <br /> Schoenzeit stated from the neighbor's point of view,their view will not change. <br /> Lemke stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 25 percent. <br /> Schoenzeit noted approximately 100 square feet would need to be removed. <br /> Lemke asked whether the applicants would be willing to look at reducing the hardcover. <br /> Page 5 of 15 <br />