Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the applicant purchased the property last spring. <br /> Lemke asked when the garage was removed. <br /> Gaffron indicated that was done in 2011. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view there is the opportunity to construct a single double-deep garage that is <br /> pretty such the same start and finish of the neighbor's house which would not block the view out the <br /> back. Schoenzeit stated if that neighbor has a lakeshore setback, the Planning Commission is obligated to <br /> protect that view. <br /> The Planning Commission viewed some photographs of the property. <br /> Gaffron asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is suggesting that the applicants remove the bump-out. <br /> Schoenzeit indicated he is. <br /> Gaffron noted that would leave approximately a 5-foot setback on one side and almost no setback on the <br /> other side. Gaffron noted one part of the house is right up against the lot line on the west side. Gaffron <br /> stated the result would be having house from one side of the lot to the other. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the advantage is that the garage would not be blocking 3407's view. The disadvantage <br /> is that the garage addition would be right next to the neighbor's new house. <br /> McGrann asked if there are other windows on the side of the house where the double doors come out on <br /> the deck. <br /> Holzem stated there are windows on the other side of the tree, which is her dining room. Holzem noted <br /> the majority of her living space is on the second floor with the exception of a family room. Holzem stated <br /> if you look at her file from when she constructed her house, due to the soil type, she ended up having to <br /> put pilings in and that the Planning Commission might want to recommend soil borings. Holzem noted <br /> some of the pilings had to go down 65 feet. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they would need frost footings to attach the garage to the house. <br /> McGrann stated as he looked at this, he can see a situation where someone would not necessarily have to <br /> attach the garage but that they could perhaps construct a smaller garage without the storage space. <br /> McGrann stated in his view the applicants have some flexibility since there was a garage there before <br /> rather than saying they should take the bay window out. McGrann indicated he would be willing to <br /> explore the option of decreasing the size of the garage versus a double-car garage and that he feels what is <br /> being proposed is far too intrusive relative to the setback. <br /> Landgraver asked whether the prior owner wou(d have been permitted to construct a 16-foot,two-car <br /> garage on the existing slab. <br /> Gaffron stated they would have had the ability to replace it in kind if the garage still existed today, which <br /> means no higher or wider. Gaffron stated when the garage came down, the prior owner had a year to <br /> replace it, which they did not, so now the newer owner must start from scratch. <br /> Page 10 of 29 <br />