Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OF raS PIAMNIBG C(MMlSSIC»i !TIK ; 1.4 P •APKIL 18» 1988 <br />*1281 JOB KAUSCBBBDOKFBR <br />3895 8B0ULIHB DRIVB <br />VARIABCB <br />PUBLIC HBBK1B6 8sl2-8t30 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />were noted. <br />Gaffron explained that that applicants were encouraged <br />by staff to submit a variance application since the <br />upgrade of Cty. Rd. 15 will have a major effect on <br />existing structures and fence on their property. The <br />applicants existing planter box will be removed as part <br />of the Cty. Rd. 15 construction which will be replaced <br />by the County, but only to the extent approved by the <br />City of Orono. Part of the planter box and most of the <br />fence are within the county road right of way. <br />Applicant requests direction as to what restoration is <br />allowable and how high a fence will be allowed. <br />Additionally, applicant is proposing a phased upgrade, <br />beginning in 1989, of the existing house including the <br />reconstruction of foundation walls and construction of <br />an addition on the lake side of the house and <br />construction of an attached garage. <br />Joe and Sandy Rauschendorfer were present for this <br />matter and reviewed their future plans and stages to be <br />done. Regarding the replacement of the fence, applicant <br />would like to construct a 6' high privacy fence. <br />Chairman Kelley felt that because applicants do not <br />intend to start work until 1989, Planning Commission <br />should only address the planter box and fence issue at <br />this time. <br />Mr. Rauschendorf er stated that they would like some <br />conceptual direction from the Planning Commission <br />regarding the extent they can use their property in <br />order to decide if they want to remain living there. <br />Chairman Kelley stated his major concern with any <br />property improvements would be staying within the <br />existing or less hardcover amounts. <br />Regarding the proposed garage, Planning Commission felt <br />the 10' structure-to structure-setback was necessary for <br />safety reasons. <br />Mr. Rauschendorfer stated that in order to build an <br />adequate sized garage with turn around the required 10' <br />structure-to-structure setback could not be maintained. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this <br />matter and the public hearing was closed.