Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br />(U4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) <br />Smith asked what hardship the applicant had for the proposed garage. Okerstrom asked <br />Smith to explain hardship. Okerstrom indicated that the lot is only 50 ’ wide. The garage <br />plans had been reduced from the original proposed size. He did not believe a one-car <br />garage would be aesthetically pleasing. Smith in noting the significant increase in <br />hardcover, questioned how the property got to this point. <br />A member of the audience noted that everyone needs a two-car garage. <br />Okerstrom informed Stoddard that he was informed by Dressier of the problem with the 8' <br />street setback. He is willing to place the garage further back but it would further increase <br />hardcover. Stoddard said he would support more hardcover to place the garage further <br />back on the p'-operty. Mabusth indicated that the necessary parking spaces would also be <br />provided if the garage was moved back. <br />Mabusth asked what guidelines were given to the applicant in September and the <br />dimensions of the proposed garage Okerstrom said the original proposal was for a <br />30'x24 ’ garage. It is currently proposed at 24'x28'. Mabusth asked if other garages in the <br />area have gables or dormers. Mrs. Okerstrom said other garages are similar. She <br />indicated the garage would be 1-1/2 stories for storage purposes, and other garages in the <br />area are two-story and closer to the street. <br />Stoddard asked what the neighbors reaction was to the proposal. Okerstrom said both <br />neighbors were supportive. <br />Mrs. Okerstrom noted that the prior review did not include any discussion of the proposal <br />due to the improper survey. They had been made aware of the need to decrease the <br />garage size and place the garage further back on the property. <br />Stoddard said he would support the proposal if the garage were moved further back. He <br />noted the Commission typically would like to see the whole picture of what will occur on <br />a property <br />Mabusth voiced concern with lack of information provided to property owner at time the <br />house was built. She supported a reduction in the garage size. <br />Dressier noted that with the shed removal, the structural coverage would be 18.4%. <br />Mabusth asked what the structural coverage was for the property with the previous home. <br />Okerstrom said the previous house was closer to the lake and there had been a detached <br />garage. The residence was moved back 8' because of the deck. Mabusth said she w ould <br />prefer that the absent Commissioners were present for the discussion.