Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Mooday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 oVIock p.m. <br />(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) <br />Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the <br />substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and <br />recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very <br />strongly to the lakeshore setback. <br />Smith questioned whether the “prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the <br />approved setback area. <br />Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f. <br />hardcover that existed before removals. <br />Rahn stated that he had no issue with the applicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2 <br />which would still keep them w'ithin the average lakeshore setback. <br />Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2 ’, the eaves on <br />top of that would mean that much more encroachment. <br />Rahn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within the 50 ’ setback and <br />asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR 50 ’ setback. <br />Gaffron stated that Cities are not prohibited from approving encroachments of the DNR <br />recommended setbacks, and have done so in some instances. <br />Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50 ’ DNR setback and uphold this <br />recommendation. <br />Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment. <br />Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65 ’ s.f. “prow” addition and a 1 foot gable overhang, <br />which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed. <br />Gaffron pointed out that the 1,500 s.f is a limit not an allowance to be met. <br />Bremer stated that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the <br />Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed encroaching <br />into the 75 ’ setback with a deck. She indicated that 50 ’ is much too close and she could not <br />support the application. <br />PAGE 14 of 28