02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MimJTESOFTfiE ORONO PLANNING CO»tMlSSION MEETING Wrtfactday, Juaary 12,2M3 (••MtM ILAKE and MANY MCHANIOL Ciiliiiti) Fntzlcr staled that he feh new coRStructkxi should be required to conform to setbacks, which arc 30' from either side. Chair Smith concurred, stating that the a|)pl!cant could build a deeper more narrow home. Bichanich stated that his intent in combmmg the two properties was to be allowed to do more with the overall parcel. He pointed out that the property wns inapproprutely zoned LR-I A. 2 acres m the Tint place, since no other properties in the area meet this standard. He indicated that, had the lot been zoned LR-IB, the property would need to meet a mere 10* side ywd setback, and been a more appropriate aoning fit for Westlake Street He argued that there is little value or inccntur for people to combine lots if the City further lirnitt the buildable area of those combined lots. He pointed out that people mi^t be better off with a SO* wide lot and apply for a 4*>side yard setback. Mabusth asked if the applicant could center the proposed residence on the property. Bichanich slated that he could move the home I S' off of either side yard, adding that the neighbors arc delighted to have garage removed from their propert}-. Rahn staled that, in his opinion, the house was not designed to fit a long narrow lot. He felt the most lenient he could be would be to allow setbacks 2/3 the distance of the requirement since the lot itself is 2/3 the requirement. Rahn believed that the applicant could do a better job of conforming to the lot, however, he could accept 20' side yard sctbaclu. Bichanich asked how this philosophy would work for SO* lots. Rahn reiterated that he did not Ihink a 100* lot should be allowed to be as close to the lot lines as required by a SO* lot. Chair Smith asked whether the Commission saw a hardship for this application. Mabusth asked if there were similar lots on the lake in Orono that were long and narrow like these on Westlake Street. Gaflron indicated that the most similar situation he could think of would be the residences along Tonkawa that are zoned I acre. Hawn stated that she would like to encourage people to combine lots and provide tncenuves to do so. therefore, had difficult)- with this application. She felt she could support a IS* side yard setback. Chair South stated that the w as not opposed to the proposal however, questioned the precedent it could besetting. Gaffron pointed out that these lots would be wtinewliat unique, in that they fall within a 2-acre zone. He added that the 50* lots are required to meet a 10* setback in acre and 1 acre districu. PAGE 10of29