Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOI <br />Mrs. Cavender commented if they are required to redesign their plan, it would require a <br />significant amount of work. C&vender noted the proposed garage for the residence is not <br />oversized. <br />Hawn inquired whether the house could be located closer to the road. <br />Mrs. Cavender stated they will not be able to meet the setback requirements. Cavender <br />indicated there are utility poles and a lift station located in the front yard, which necessitates <br />the house being located a little further back. <br />Boyer stated due to the narrowness of Rest Point Road and the lack of parking available <br />on the street, the house and garage need to be located furtier back to accommodate a <br />car in the driveway. <br />Stoddard commented he would be willing to approve a variance to the front yard setback. <br />but that the Applicants need to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. <br />Stoddard suggested this application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. <br />Stoddard stated the Applicant probably will not be allowed to construct a patio or walkway <br />to the lake. <br />Mrs. Cavender stated the patio is located off to the side. <br />Nygard noted the patio is still located within the 0-75' setback. <br />Smith recommended the Applicants attempt to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage <br />limit and relocate the house closer to the road. <br />Kluth indicated the number one Issue is the structural coverage, with the 15 percent needing <br />to be complied with. Kluth stated he would like to see the hardcover under the 25 percent <br />limit as well due to environmental concerns. Kluth noted the 0-75* setback is the most <br />critical as it relates to hardcover due to the impact to the lake. <br />Hawn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to adhere to the <br />15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would be willing <br />to extend the 60 day review period should the Planning Commission table this application. <br />Page 40 <br />e