Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br /> • <br /> (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) <br /> Stoddard noted the problem with applicants coming back after building a home and asking <br /> for variances to build a garage. He suggested the property owner sign that they have been <br /> informed of such an issue when a residence is built. Mabusth noted that sometimes the <br /> owner and builder are the same. <br /> Bressler clarified that the shed removal was not a condition of the certificate of occupancy <br /> but the drainage correction was. <br /> Smith suggested direction be given to the applicant. It was clarified that hardcover and <br /> structure size were issues of concern. Smith felt safety would be improved if the garage <br /> was moved further back. She suggested considering a smaller garage since the structural <br /> coverage would increase and due to the house only being two years old. <br /> Okerstrom voiced frustration with resubmitting a plan that was a result of Staff <br /> recommendations and hearing that further reductions are now needed. Smith informed <br /> him that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity previously to discuss the <br /> issues. She would not support the structural coverage as proposed. While she <br /> understands the need for a garage, she was concerned that variances are being requested <br /> only two years after the home was built. <br /> • <br /> Mabusth noted that the intensity of the structure is also an issue as the setback is <br /> o y <br /> substandard. Mabusth explained for Mrs. Okerstrom what is meant by being substandard. <br /> Mabusth commented that the original house would have been smaller if the garage was <br /> built at the same time and considered with that application. Okerstrom said they were <br /> unable to afford to build the garage at that time. He also indicated that the house is the <br /> same size as the previous house. Berg reiterated that the Commission tries to improve <br /> properties and decrease the amount of structure on a lot when new construction takes <br /> place. <br /> Bressler reviewed the direction given. The Commissioners agreed to a 20' setback and <br /> hardcover. <br /> Mabusth asked about intensity of mass in relation to the lot line. Stoddard indicated the <br /> house is new but a reduction from what existed. He informed the applicant that if the <br /> motion is denied, the Council will review the application with that recommendation or the <br /> application can be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff on further reductions. <br /> Okerstrom asked for direction on garage location. Smith informed him that the <br /> Commission cannot redesign the garage but a structural coverage reduction is necessary. <br /> 16 <br />