07-21-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MESUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10,1997 (#10 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) ---------- Gaf&on repmed th^ the Planning Commission reviewed the revised application and ^ommended demaL The vanances are a result of the shape and size the lot and setbacks for an addition to the west end of the residence, a new attached garage and an attached ^est hoi«e with additional garage. The detached garage is to be removed The residence is located on I^e Classen requiring a 150’ setback, which is met by the existing residence with the existing garage at 123’. The revbed plan proposes the ^d 7 for the garage which will be removed. There is a 5 ’ separation proposed from the house to the c^t lot hne. The proposed street setback is 24’ where 50’ is required The average setback as d .6ned by the house to the east is encroached to a lesser degree at 80’ but no encroachment IS allowed. The CUP is for a guest house. An approval was grantw last year for a lesser variance that did not include the guest apartment. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial was based on the following specific reasons: The need for setback variances to support the proposed guest apartment use suggests that use is not appropriate for the site. The sep^ted garages u proposed yield the appearance of a two-unit dwelling in this single family zoning district. The hardships are self-created, i.e., the need for the magnitude of variances request^ is a direa result of a proposed additional use on the site rather than a substantial hardship to the property. If approved, the resulting structure would be out of character with the majority of other homes on CoRd 6 in regard to proximity to the road. Gaffron cited other factors which may have entered into the recommendation: The DNR recommended denial of the lake setback variance as it is a self-created hardship. The limited building envelope would be si^ficantly encroached upon. The 5' east side setback previously approved was justified by a finding that no additions to the west were feasible due to the limited building envelope. There is a lack of an alternate drainfield site, though no additional bedrooms over the design capacity are requested. Heupel responded to Gaffron’s comments. He said the applicant does not agree with the hardships being self-imposed. The required setback at the time the property was purchased by the Helgager’s was 75’ but now has 1300 s.f of buildable land. When the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted, the building envelope was reduced rendering the property' basically unbuildable. The plans for any addition w'ould require variances, and the proposed revisions are closer to CoRd 6 due to the lake setback. Heupel said the plans have gone through several design changes, and neither he or the applicant view any further changes without a significant cost. Jabbour, while commenting that he a^eed with the comments regarding the lot, reported that the Planning Commission w'as w’illing to W'ork with the applicant regarding the issue of the separated additional garage and were not asking that the 1300 s.f. be adhered to.