My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
08-14-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 12:01:09 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 11:57:49 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
365
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MLNUTES of the ORONO PL.ANN1NG CONLMISSION [VffiETING HELD ON JL1.Y 17, 1995(#6 - #2036 Robert Goutanis - Continued)The appficant said if the Commisson would approve a two-car garage, he would be wilKi^ to locate it wheiever necessary to remove the 6” encroachment The 24* garage dimenson was set arbitrarily by the ^^plicam as Gountaris said most municipalities require 528 s.f mtiuiiium garage size today. If Staff or Planning Commission recommended a reduction in size, the af^i^cant said a 22x22* garage would be satisfactory. <br />Rowlette asked if the side setback required is 10* \labusth said that is true, but the <br />setback to the lake is also an isaie. If the garage were to be moved 10* with side loading <br />doors, tiare would be no room for a car to back up, enter, or exit. <br />Rowlette commented moving the foundation makes this application new construction. It <br />was further noted that some kind of variance would be needed on this property for any <br />building changes at all as majority' of lot is located within lakeshore protected area. <br />Gountanis said it was his attempt to minimize hardcover in the lakeshore area and „way <br />from the neighbors. Lindquist asked Gountanis what his preference was in relation to the <br />three options. Gountanis said case # 1 was the simpliest. Case #2 provided tor more space <br />but still presented problems with the foundation. Case #3 would be most cost effective to <br />start over again and replace in the best area for the property Gountanis agrees that the <br />garage should be moved at least 6" and would be easier accomplished by building a new <br />garage. Case #3 is his preference, but said it would come down to the money approved by <br />his lender on whether his choice would be case 1 or 3. <br />Smith inquired about the history of the property. The previous owner, Mr. Herman, had <br />used it as his secondary residence. It had been homesteaded in 1974-81. It has not been <br />occupied for several years. <br />Bill Bachman, 1090 Loma Linda, whose property lies north of the subject property, said <br />he would 'ike to see the property restored He has no reservations on the proposals <br />presented. Gountanis said he had spoken with Bachman concerning improvements. <br />Bachman had said he improved his own property in 1990 with tunneling under and <br />pouring the foundation to save the residence Mabusth commented that this residence is <br />not located in the 0-75’ zone <br />Rowlette said case # 1 would have a bandaid-type affect. It was her recommendation to <br />keep structural coverage at 1500 s.f maximum and would only approve case #3, <br />providing the garage be moved allowing safe egress and ingress Rowlette further noted <br />that leaving the property as seasonal would not solve any problems and remain an ey esore. <br />It was commented that there would be no average lakeshore issue or any visual impact on <br />the neighbors
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.