03-20-1989 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NIHDTB8 OF TIB PUUnilBG COMMISSIOil miBG NMICB 20, 1989 «12€1 JOB BBOSCHBBDORPBR 3895 8BOBBLIBB DRIYB VARIABCB COHTIBOBTIOB OP PUBLIC HBBBXB6 7sl0 P.N. TO 7s30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The Rauachendorfers were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application had been brought forward approximately a year ago. At that time, the Planning Commission requested additional information and provided the applicants with conceptual direction. The applicants were now providing more information with respect to their plans to add a 4' addition onto the lake side of the house and build an attached garage to the west. The applicants' proposal for the garage would only allow 6' between the applicants' and the neighboring residential structure. Chairman Kelley expressed his opinion of a 6' separation being inadequate, especially for fire safety standards. The applicants were confused about the 10' setback requirement from a lot line, not the neighboring structure. Kelley and Gaffron clarified this so that the applicants understood. Mr. Rauschendorfer said that using such standards would allow them 17-1/2' for the garage. In order to build a 20' garage, they would need to cut into the house 2 — 1/2'. The east and street sides of the house would remain the same. Applicants' proposal would reduce hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250 setback areas. Chairman Kelley said that it was Orono's policy that whenever a foundation was replaced, the house should be moved to meet the specified setbacks. Kelley asked the applicants if they intended to place the new foundation exactly where the current footings were located. Mr. Rauschendorfer replied that three sides and half of the front would use the same current footings. The foundation does not extend under the screen porch. Planning Commissioner Johnson believed that the lot was too small to accomodate the applicants' proposal. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred with Johnson, adding that the only improvement she could foresee would be a single stall garage. In her opinion, allowing the variances requested would make a "bad situation worse". Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the practicality of a long, narrow garage that would allow for two cars parked end to end. Gaffron replied that the garage would encroach too much toward County Road 15 or toward the lake. Chairman Kelley expressed his belief that the Rauschendorfera were entitled to a garage. Planning Commissioner Brown proposed using a firewall if the variance for the garage were approved. 8