07-17-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

• L_-] • MQNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 17, 1995 (#6 - #2036 Robert Goutanis - Continued) The applicant said if the Commission would approve a two -car garage, he would be willing to locate it wherever necessary to remove the 6" encroachment. The 24' garage dimension was set arbitrarily by the applicant as Gountanis said most municipalities require 528 s.f minimum garage size today. If Staff or Planning Commission recommended a reduction in size, the applicant said a 22x22' garage would be satisfactory. Rowlette asked if the side setback required is 10'. Mabusth said that is true, but the setback to the lake is also an issue. If the garage were to be moved 10' with side loading doors, there would be no room for a car to back up, enter, or exit. Rowlette commented moving the foundation makes this application new construction. It was further noted that some kind of variance would be needed on this property for any building changes at all as majority of lot is located within Lakeshore protected area. Gountanis said it was his attempt to minimize hardcover in the lakeshore area and away from the neighbors. Lindquist asked Gountanis what his preference was in relation to the three options. Gountanis said case #1 was the simpliest. Case #2 provided for more space but still presented problems with the foundation. Case #3 would be most cost effective to start over again and replace in the best area for the property. Gountanis agrees that the garage should be moved at least 6" and would be easier accomplished by building a new garage. Case #3 is his preference, but said it would come down to the money approved by his lender on whether his choice would be case 1 or 3. Smith inquired about the history of the property. The previous owner, Mr. Herman, had used it as his secondary residence. It had been homesteaded in 1974 -81. It has not been occupied for several years. Bill Bachman, 1090 Loma Linda, whose property lies north of the subject property, said he would like to see the property restored. He has no reservations on the proposals presented. Gountanis said he had spoken with Bachman concerning improvements. Bachman had said he improved his own property in 1990 with tunneling under and pouring the foundation to save the residence. Mabusth commented that this residence is not located in the 0-75' zone. Rowlette said case #1 would have a bandaid -type affect. It was her recommendation to keep structural coverage at 1500 s.f maximum and would only approve case #3, providing the garage be moved allowing safe egress and ingress. Rowlette further noted that leaving the property as seasonal would not solve any problems and remain an eyesore. It was commented that there would be no average lakeshore issue or any visual impact on the neighbors. 7