Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, April 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued) <br /> Jim Bull, 1330 Cherry Place, indicated that the proposal fails to be consistent with the <br /> amount of hardcover required by the City as compared to other 100'+ lots. He believed the <br /> architect could design an aesthetic home that took up less space. <br /> Hurr urged the Commission to be consistent in all facets of development, not just old <br /> versus new. <br /> Chair Smith found all other variances acceptable, except the structural coverage and <br /> hardcover variance requests. <br /> Rahn wished to see an alternate plan which did not exceed the 15% structural coverage <br /> amount and hardcover requirements. He felt the overages were design issues and not <br /> hardship driven, in fact, he felt the applicant was not far from meeting the 15% allowance <br /> with a little work. <br /> Fritzler and Mabusth agreed with Rahn. <br /> If the applicant met the 15% structural allowance, Chair Smith asked whether the <br /> Commission could support their exceeding the 25%hardcover requirement since they are <br /> removing so much hardcover from the 0-75' setback zone. <br /> Hawn questioned whether that was reasonable since the Commission generally holds firm <br /> on new construction. <br /> Mrs. Anderson pointed out that the existing residence is very close to falling into the lake <br /> and slips away more daily as erosion continues at 1300 Spruce Place. She felt the applicant <br /> had really no choice than to pull it back and it is fair to give him incentive to do so. Due to <br /> the inconvenience of construction, she also preferred to see both homes under construction <br /> at the same time. <br /> Mr. Walker pointed out that the citizens along Spruce Place have chosen to underground <br /> all of their own utilities and had been in contact with public works regarding this <br /> transition. <br /> For ease of discussion, Bremer asked that the two applications be considered separately. <br /> She pointed out that the Toth home does not meet the 15%, whereas, the Killian home does <br /> meet this figure. <br /> MacDonald stated that they could tweak the Toth design to meet the 15% structural <br /> limitation. <br /> PAGE 32 of 40 <br />