Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1989 <br />#1261 JOB RAUSCHBNDORFBR <br />3895 SHORELINE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />The Rauschendorfers were present for this matter. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed <br />the Planning Commission that this application had been brought <br />forward approximately a year ago. At that time, the Planning <br />Commission requested additional information and provided the <br />applicants with conceptual direction. The applicants were now <br />providing more information with respect to their plans to add a <br />4* addition onto the lake side of the house and build an attached <br />garage to the west. <br />The applicants* proposal for the garage would only allow 6* <br />between the applicants' and the neighboring residential <br />structure. Chairman Kelley expressed his opinion of a 6* <br />separation being inadequate, especially for fire safety <br />standards. The applicants were confused about the 10* setback <br />requirement from a lot line, not the neighboring structure. <br />Kelley and Gaffron clarified this so that the applicants <br />understood. Mr. Rauschendorfer said that using such standards <br />would allow them 17-1/2* for the garage. In order to build a 20* <br />garage, they would need to cut into the house 2-1/2*. The east <br />and street sides of the house would remain the same. Applicants* <br />proposal would reduce hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250 setback <br />areas. <br />Chairman Kelley said that it was Orono's policy that <br />whenever a foundation was replaced, the house should be moved to <br />meet the specified setbacks. Kelley asked the applicants if they <br />intended to place the new foundation exactly where the current <br />footings were located. Mr. Rauschendorfer replied that three <br />sides and half of the front would use the same current footings. <br />The foundation does not extend under the screen porch. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson believed that the lot was too <br />small to accomodate the applicants* proposal. Planning <br />Commissioner Bellows concurred with Johnson, adding that the only <br />improvement she could foresee would be a single stall garage. In <br />her opinion, allowing the variances requested would make a "bad <br />situation worse". Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the <br />practicality of a long, narrow garage that would allow for two <br />cars parked end to end. Gaffron replied that the garage would <br />encroach too much toward County Road 15 or toward the lake. <br />Chairman Kelley expressed his belief that the <br />Rauscaandorfers were entitled to a garage. Planning Commissioner <br />Brown proposed using a firewall if the variance for the garage <br />were approved.