Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 16,2001 <br />Biumentritt responded that they had looked at those options. The current entry is not safe and using <br />the existing garage as an entr>-»av makes sense with the rest of the la>out. <br />Fritzler staled that in redesigning a structure on the existing propert>. the goal would be not to <br />encroach on the side setbacks any more than necessary. He also suggested shortening the 2 Vi car <br />garage but going deeper to the back of the property so the same square footage would be involved in <br />the additions. <br />Berg was in concurrence with other members in maintaining a 30* setback from the side lot line, w ith <br />more of the additions to the back of the house. She was also concerned with headlights shining in <br />the neighbor's house. <br />Menge stated one of the neighbor's concerns was the noise caused by dri\ ing into the garage. He fell <br />by having a longer driveway, the noise issue was increased. <br />Biumentritt requested that the application be tabled to provide an opportunity to rev isc the proposed <br />plans. <br />Lindquist indicated that if the proposal were 30 ’ or more from the lot line and the structure is <br />reasonable for Ihe property, the Planning Commission may vote in favor of such a plan. <br />Biumentritt stated they would look again at the design of the garage addition but would probably be <br />approaching a 2S* setback. <br />Lindquist reiterated that he was looking at a 30* setback. If additional space is needed, going back <br />into the lot should be considered. <br />Biumentritt responded that the topography of the lot may play a part in the steepness of a driveway. <br />He stated the purpose of the variance is to took at the hardships on the site, and determine a <br />reasonable solution. <br />PAGES