Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, July 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#13 #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, Continued) <br /> Mr. Smith submitted a neighborhood recommendation from four neighbors supporting his <br /> position to reduce 1 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area for every 2 new s.f. in the 75-250' <br /> setback area. <br /> Mr. Smith explained that his home is oriented to the lake and has four doors which exit to the <br /> lakeside. In an effort to maintain the character of his home, he suggested that he remove 300 s.f <br /> from the 0-75'. He expressed his hesitation to remove additional pavement from the driveway, <br /> since the road is a private driveway with no where to park. As proposed, Smith stated that they <br /> would build over the 1 V2 car garage. With regard to the stormwater diversion, Smith indicated <br /> that he could divert all but one of the gutters away from the lakeside. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Hawn stated that she had a problem supporting the 1:2 removal ratio. She added that the shed <br /> was currently too close to the property line and would need to be relocated or removed. In <br /> addition, she felt further removals than the estimated 300 s.f. offered would be required. <br /> Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could support a redesign of the drainage flow, if <br /> their interest did not support the 1:2 removals. <br /> Rahn concurred with the staff recommended 1:1 removal ratio. <br /> Mabusth stated that she did not wish to see further driveway reductions, and believed the <br /> removals would need to come from the patio. <br /> Smith pointed out that he had tried to save the patio and create something that would reduce <br /> runoff into the lake. He maintained that this was not a large lot, that most of the home falls <br /> within the 0-75' setback zone, and 40% of the property is not counted in hardcover calculations. <br /> While he was willing to move the shed, he encouraged the Commission to review this <br /> application in the variance process based on its own merits and not the cookie cutter standards <br /> often mandated across the board. <br /> Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would be inclined to support the staff <br /> recommendation, along with removals of landscape fabric, and asked the applicant whether he <br /> would prefer the Commission vote on or table the application. <br /> Smith asked if the Commission could vote on the portions of the application independently and <br /> provide him the opportunity to present his 1:2 removal ratio recommendation to the City <br /> Council, along with his plan to redirect runoff away from the lakeside of the residence. <br /> PAGE 21 of 37 <br />