06/16/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, Continued) Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive, stated that he had sent a letter opposing the variances and would remain for comment. Chair Smith acknowledged that the application had some significant recommendations for denial. Ms. Ziebarth distributed a revised set of plans for consideration. She explained that they had been misled to believe that the lot was 27% larger than it actually was,based on significant erosion to the lot. She stated that it would not be a spec home as many neighbors have stated, but their own lake home. Ms. Ziebarth believed their hardship stemmed from the fact that the lot was substantially smaller than what they believed they had bought and that the lot would virtually be unbuildable if the footprint was held to 720'. She shared plans to remove their portion of the shared driveway to reduce hardcover and a new garage placement which would assist in the proposed drainage plan. By removing a portion of the deck, she stated they would also fall below the 1500 s.f. structural coverage. She asked which was most important to the Commission, structural coverage or hardcover. The Commission indicated that both requirements must be met. Although she believed there to be significant revisions, Chair Smith stated that the Commission could not act on something staff has not been given the opportunity to review and that they had only seen for the first time moments ago. She suggested the application be tabled and that the applicants continue to work with staff on revisions. She indicated that she would like to see further reductions in the 75-250' setback zone. Mabusth indicated that she had difficulty accepting the extremely sub standard side yard setbacks, and believed the applicants would have to step back the second story addition. Rahn agreed, stating that he would not support making the setbacks any more substandard in any direction than they were currently. Since staff had worked on similar application in the past, Bremer suggested the applicants work with the planning staff to come to an acceptable compromise. She stated that, in her opinion,the 0-75' setback was more important than a side yard setback variance. Ziebarth pointed out that the neighbor's peak was 43' tall and towered above their home. Gaffron indicated that, typically, the City does not grant side yard setback variances less than 5- 10'. Page 13 of 22