05-19-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 (#7 - #2181 James Nystrom - Continued) Mabusth noted that the hardcover in the 75-250' setback would require a 10% variance and a 30% variance in the 250-500' setback, due to the limited area in the 250-500' setback area. The existing driveway at 1250 s.f has a major impact. Mabusth informed McMillan that a new garage would be built in the street yard and would result in a reduction of hardcover for the driveway. Frazee added that the garage currently loads to the side and major removal of asphalt would result from the doors facing the street. Stoddard received confirmation from Mabusth that the proposal is the same as what was approved in 1995. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2181 for variance renewal. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #2182 HERBERT TERRY OLSON, 3640 BAYSTOE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:59-9:23 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jane Olson was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to construct a detached garage The existing garage is currently located adjacent to CoRd 84, and the applicant proposes to rebuild at same substandard street setback 6 to the east. A private sewer clean out was located by Staff just to the northeast of existing garage. If retaining walls are proposed around newly located garage, the sewer line would be impacted. Mabusth said she received a call from Mrs. Olson on this dale, who informed her that the purpose of rebuilding the garage was due to the fact that the walls of the existing garage serve as retaining walls of adjacent steep banks. The Olsons would like to rebuild the garage and e.xcavate around the garage in order to have retaining walls. The property is considered a through lot as well as a comer lot requiring a 50 setback from three sides of lot There is also steep topography to contend with. There is an accessory' structure at the northwest comer of the property. Mabusth said an application for a side setback variance in 1986 for a proposed addition was never proceeded with. Mrs Ol.-^on said the addition was built but moved to the north si'^e of the home where no variance was required It had been requested at the Planning » mmission during that review that w ith the large size of the property, another area n- ! ► i nng variances could be found where the addition could be built. The Olsons thou::nt It r .-^r and made the change.