Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING <br /> - Monday,Apri117,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3189 Terry and Suzanne Johnson,Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission and City Council have been fairly strict on sixuctural coverage in <br /> the past. Gaffron indicated Staff does not have a neighborhood analysis regarding the hardcover limits <br /> approved by the City for this area,but pointed out the lots in this neighborhood have been granted <br /> significant hardcover variances given the small lots. <br /> Rahn concurred that the City has been consistent on the amount of structural coverage allowed and that <br /> the applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Rahn stated in his view the side yard variance is <br /> required because of the three-car garage and that it is unlikely a variance would be approved since there is <br /> not a hardship. • <br /> Rahn indicated when new construction is being proposed,the applicants start out with a clean slate and <br /> that any nonconformities need to be either brought into compliance or removed. <br /> Smith commented that other residents have constructed lock boxes rather than a shed in the 0-75' zone. <br /> Rahn suggested the applicants have their architect design a footprint that is workable along with a <br /> minimal driveway. <br /> Jurgens indicated he would echo Chair Rahn's comments. Jurgens stated the footprint needs to be <br /> brought into conformity with the structural coverage limit and then the other issues can be addressed if <br /> need be. Jurgens stated complying with the average lakeshore setback might be difficult and that he <br /> would like to see the 10-foot side yard setback complied with based on the visual perception that would <br /> be created if all the lots were allowed a 5-foot setback. <br /> Rahn noted the city engineer has also recommended a 10-foot setback, which was probably to help with <br /> the drainage. <br /> Winkey concurred that the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent with requiring the structural <br />, coverage to remain within the allowable limit. <br /> Kempf stated a 50-foot lot is a difficult lot to work with but that the City would like the house to be as <br /> conforming as possible. Kempf commented the shed would have to be removed with the new <br /> construction. Kempf recommended the applicants redesign their plans to bring the house into <br /> conformance with the structural coverage limits. <br /> Jurgens stated in his view this project will probably be a rebuild rather than a remodel but that Staff could <br /> give some guidance to the applicants. <br /> Rahn stated in his view it is unlikely the City Council would approve all the variances being requested. <br /> Mrs.Johnson stated in her opinion they do have hardships given the location of the existing house and the <br /> fact that the structural coverage is already over the limit. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />