Laserfiche WebLink
k ■ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21,2003 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />75 ’ setback zone grace was insignificant, since the average lakeshore setback protrudes <br />further than their home. f « <br />Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had allowed limited side yard setbacks in the <br />past. <br />GafTron stated that the Commission has gone so far as to approve 5 ’ side yard setbacks but <br />no less on both sides of a tiny lot. ’ <br />Ziebarth maintained that he could rebuild a new 720 s.f. footprint home meeting all of the <br />setbacks and questioned why he could not do this which was a smaller design. <br />Hawn reiterated that the home would be too close to the side yard setbacks and too close to <br />the neighbors. <br />Fritzler commented, small lot, small house. <br />Rahn agreed with staff recommendations. <br />Mabusth suggested the applicant reconsider the detached garage in order to allow them <br />additional living space. <br />Ziebarth repeated that he felt the detached garage would have a negative impact on the <br />design and increase their hardcover. <br />Chair Smith asked the applicant whether the Commission should table or vote on the <br />application. <br />Ziebarth asked what other options tl.cre might be. <br />HaNvn suted that they had given the applicants direction. The Commission would consider <br />something less than a 10’ side yard setback, but no less than 5 ’, more like 7.5 ’ and <br />encouraged him to consider this. <br />In addition, Gaffron stated that, if the applicant chose new construction, he would be <br />required to meet 25% hwdeover, versus the rebuild design which allows him 45%. In <br />reality, Caffen indicated that new constniction would most likely be identical to the <br />hardcover of the rebuild. <br />Ziebarth asked for further second story suggestions. <br />PAGE 11 of 37 <br />m <br />1