05-08-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) During public comments, John Gering of 1687 Concordia reported being in agreement with the plans as proposed. Mabusth reviewed the variances and comparisons of the existing structure and proposed plan. The proposed deck would be located at 40* from lakeshore and currently exists at 28'. The principal structure now located at 39* will be relocated at 50'. The deck would encroach 10 ’ in front of the average lakeshore setback but the structure would meet this setback The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 28% and is now proposed at 26®/o. Hardcover in the 75-250' exists at 33% and is now proposed at 32.4®/o. Hardcover in tte 250-500’ exists at 40% and is proposed at 34% Total hardcover exists at 32.79% and is proposed at 30 95%. There is no structural coverage variance required proposed at 14.2%. Nolan noted that the house plan is absent of peripheral hardcover and sees no areas where concessions can be made. Nolan also noted the significant natural berm on the lakeside which would result in runoff moving back away from the lake instead of forward. Nolan commented that the plan is consistent with the neighborhood, Rowlette voiced her concern with the substandard setbacks of the area. Rowlette opined that this would be a good opportunity to look to the future of the area and require a 75’ setback. Other improvements in the area in the future could then be changed to meet the 75’ setback. Rowlette did note that she was otherwise in approval of the proposed plaa A public comment was heard from a new incoming neighbor of a sanitary sewer easement which runs through this and other properties luO’ from the road. The applicant reported that the sanitary sewer easement runs next to their garage apron. Mr. Pain responded with the options available. He said the original proposed plan had beer, i^ipi; ved at the 39’ setback, and he was not willing to change the new plan to the 75’ setb^ k palm said this would result in their home being behind all of the homes and was not aware of any immediate changes happening to the home to the immediate south. Palm also responded to the negative when asked by Rowlette if he would move the plan back to have the deck meet the 50’ setback. Smith commented that she would not approve any plan if the deck would not be moved back to meet the 50’ setback. Palm noted the good drainage of the property with the sand base and lack of any pooling of water. Palm also commented on the benefits to the neighborhood if this plan was approved. Peterson commented that requesting a 75’ setback was probably unrealistic but did note that approval would set a precedent.