03-16-1998 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Smith asked what hardship the applicant had for the proposed garage. Okerstrom asked Smith to explain hardship. Okerstrom indicated that the lot is only 50'wide. The garage plans had been reduced from the original proposed size. He did not believe a one-car garage would be aesthetically pleasing. Smith in noting the significant increase in hardcover, questioned how the property got to this point. A member of the audience noted that everyone needs a two-car garage. Okerstrom informed Stoddard that he was informed by Bressler of the problem with the 8' street setback. He is willing to place the garage further back but it would further increase hardcover. Stoddard said he would support more hardcover to place the garage further back on the property. Mabusth indicated that the necessary parking spaces would also be provided if the garage was moved back. Mabusth asked what guidelines were given to the applicant in September and the dimensions of the proposed garage. Okerstrom said the original proposal was for a 30'x24' garage. It is currently proposed at 24'x28'. Mabusth asked if other garages in the area have gables or dormers. Mrs. Okerstrom said other garages are similar. She indicated the garage would be 1-1/2 stories for storage purposes, and other garages in the 410 area are two-story and closer to the street. Stoddard asked what the neighbors reaction was to the proposal. Okerstrom said both neighbors were supportive. Mrs. Okerstrom noted that the prior review did not include any discussion of the proposal due to the improper survey. They had been made aware of the need to decrease the garage size and place the garage further back on the property. Stoddard said he would support the proposal if the garage were moved further back. He noted the Commission typically would like to see the whole picture of what will occur on a property. Mabusth voiced concern with lack of information provided to property owner at time the house was built. She supported a reduction in the garage size. Bressler noted that with the shed removal, the structural coverage would be 18.4%. Mabusth asked what the structural coverage was for the property with the previous home. Okerstrom said the previous house was closer to the lake and there had been a detached garage. The residence was moved back 8' because of the deck. Mabusth said she would prefer that the absent Commissioners were present for the discussion. 15