Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1514 April 11, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />5. Applicant solicited and obtained property owner <br />acknowledgement forms from all the neighboring property <br />owners who were legally notified. The only comment received <br />from any of them was from Mrs. Smith on Harrington Circle in <br />Long Lake who objected to the height of the barn being <br />higher than the houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Miller <br />notes that in fact the barn will be no higher, and in some <br />cases lower, than the peak heights of the houses on <br />Harrington Circle, while being approximately 400' from those <br />houses. Also, the proposed barn will be much lower than the <br />peak of the A-frame church across the street. <br />Discussion - <br />Please review staff's letter to the applicant dated March <br />12, 1990 which encapsulizes the code requirements for the <br />proposed barn construction and its use. The applicant's house is <br />a 1-story rambler, and if he originally opted to build a 2-story <br />residence, which he certainly would have been allowed to do, he <br />would not be in need of the current variance. <br />Planning Commission may wish to view the barn as it <br />currently exists to the northwest of the old Panuska house (now <br />vacant) at 3140 Watertown Road. Per applicant's original letter <br />to staff of March 9, 1990, he notes that he had originally <br />intended to build a metal pole barn but felt that the classic <br />barn with gambrel roof would be much more attractive. <br />Staff would note that the property abuts the Long Lake city <br />boundary, and that the 6 residential lots in that City which <br />received legal notification have an average lot size of <br />approximately .40 acre. Obviously, these are two neighborhoods <br />of a distinctly different character. On the Orono side, the <br />applicant under the 2 acre zoning standards could not subdivide <br />his property further. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />The applicant's hardship certainly relates to the height of <br />the existing house in relationship to the proposed barn. If <br />Planning Commission feels that the character of the barn in <br />addition to the separation between the structures and the <br />proposed setbacks from the property lines result in a structure <br />that will not be obtrusive in the neighborhood, a recommendation <br />for a variance approval could be reasonably justified. A few <br />other issues that Planning Commission may wish to address could <br />include: