Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 16,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Lemke commented the request seems reasonable. <br /> Olson stated there is a strong case for the fence. <br /> Ressler stated he is in favor of the 6-foot fence and would even entertain an 8-foot fence given the <br /> circumstances. Ressler stated he has not found any reason to oppose it. <br /> Berg commented there are extenuating circumstances in this situation. <br /> Lemke asked if the Planning Commission feels the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the <br /> Ordinance. <br /> Ressler commented there is not much harmony currently given the commercial activity next door. <br /> Libby stated the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and that he is not sure why the neighboring <br /> property should be allowed to intrude on someone's quiet and reasonable enjoyment of their property. <br /> Lemke asked if the fence would alter the character of the neighborhood. <br /> Berg stated it does not. <br /> Erickson stated in his view it would be an improvement. <br /> Ressler moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000063,Matt <br /> Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive,granting of a variance to the 75-foot lakeyard setback and the <br /> average lakeshore setback in order to permit the construction of a 6-foot privacy fence. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY STRUCTURES <br /> SETBACK,7:33 P.M.—7:53 P.M. <br /> Barnhart stated this is a continuation of the conversation the Planning Commission had last month <br /> regarding some proposed changes for the accessory structure setbacks. The previous discussed looked at <br /> some of the zonal impacts. Since that time Staff has drafted a table based on the zonal impacts introduced <br /> at the last meeting. <br /> Staff has compiled an ordinance amendment. Included within the ordinance will be a table attached to <br /> each residential zoning district that incorporates the lot area and lot width where that applies,the setbacks <br /> for the principal structures,and then also anticipated improvements. A table will also be prepared for the <br /> business districts but will be slightly different in format in order to anticipate possible improvements such <br /> as parking lots and other common improvements in commercial districts. <br /> Barnhart noted the tables are conceptual at this point and are intended to look at the impacts an accessory <br /> structure could have. The proposed table for the LR-Al district notes that the side yard setbacks for lots <br /> that are nonconforming as to their width shall be the lessor or 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot <br /> width as defined. However,in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. The table also <br /> looks at lake yard setbacks,street setbacks,wetlands,and height. Possible improvements on lake lots <br /> include accessory buildings; oversized accessory buildings; accessory structures such as pools,patios, and <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br />