08-21-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) Lindquist said he would not approve the 2 -story garage. Peterson said the garage was only shown as a 2 -story on the elevation drawing. Schroeder said considerable progress has been planned for the property with the house being moved back out of the 0 -75' setback area and believed this was enough to warrant approval for the 2 -story garage. Gountanis said the reason case #3 was chosen was to improve all the setbacks. He said he felt he had made concessions. It was key to Gountanis to maintain the basic shape and gain as much house on the foot print as possible. Gountanis emphasized that he tried to accomodate the recommendations of the Planning Commission and stay within the guidelines. Peterson said he agreed with that summation. He noted that alternatives were limited, and the issue of the 2 -story garage was a misunderstanding and an oversight. Peterson said he would be inclined to vote for approval. • Mabusth said the oversight was the reason the application was brought back before the Commission. The oversight was also on the applicant's part for not bringing to the attention of the Commission the desire for the garage to be two stories. Gountanis said he did not know it would be a concern. It was further noted that cases 1 and 2 did not present the garage as two stories, only one. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the plan for a 2 -story garage. Ayes 4, Hawn, Smith, Berg, Lindquist; Nays, 2, Schroeder, Peterson. Motion for denial approved. • The applicant asked what was the definition of a one -story garage. Mabusth said there was not one but it must be within the setbacks. Gountanis asked if he could follow the roof line of the house. Berg suggested following the same pitch, but lowering it one story, and demonstrated what she meant on the overhead. Mabusth said the design plan should be reviewed. Ann Stevens voiced her frustration to the Planning Commission regarding the oversight, the lost month of construction time, the costs involved in redesigning by the architect; adding, she wanted the Council to review the plan. She also said she was confused that it was noted the floor plans were not detailed, when she felt Mabusth had said the plans were the best. Mabusth clarified that she had said the plans were adequate for the review and addressed all pertinent issues. 6