Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 18,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> be a sewer connection charge that would be due but that there is no question that sewer is available on this <br /> property. <br /> McGrann stated if you just look at the applicants' average lakeshore setback and you assume Lot 6 is a <br /> separate lot versus 1135 is not on the lakeshore. <br /> Gaffron stated in the situation where this is a vacant lot,they would look at meeting the average setback <br /> based on the house that is there on the other side. <br /> Schwingler asked if the City bases its average lakeshore setback on what is there and not based on what is <br /> not there. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> Landgraver stated what is before the Planning Commission is the adjacent lot, which is being considered <br /> as a single lot, and that there is a house there. Landgraver stated in that situation the City has consistently <br /> measured the average lakeshore setback line based on the adjacent lakeshore houses. Landgraver stated <br /> based on that,the proposed house would require a variance. <br /> Landgraver stated the other dimension to consider is height of the proposed structure. Since the existing <br /> house is way up high, one argument is that because the proposed house is lower, it would not obstruct as <br /> much view. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has not contemplated that dimension before in <br /> their discussions of average lakeshore setback. Landgraver stated even in looking at this as flat land,the <br /> Planning Commission would not grant this. <br /> McGrann stated he tends to be in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that it is hard to make a <br /> decision given the circumstances. McGrann stated given that the two lots are combined, he finds it hard <br /> to take that out of the equation in terms of the average lakeshore setback line and go straight across a <br /> piece of property that is currently legally tied to another lot. McGrann stated he understands the height <br /> argument but that he has a hard time approving an average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> Schwingler stated he also is in agreement. Schwingler stated in dealing with what exists today, the <br /> proposed house is way outside the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Leskinen indicated she would also agree with that. <br /> Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not real comfortable about voting on a bunch of <br /> hypotheticals. <br /> Leskinen stated simply looking at just the zoning question alone and not the legal question,what exists <br /> today is that the adjacent lot is a full lot regardless of how it is combined. Leskinen indicated she is in <br /> agreement with the prior comments. <br /> Lemke stated by taking away the restriction on the height, it still impedes the neighbor's view. Lemke <br /> stated they would be able to look over the house but they would still be able to still the house. <br /> Schwingler noted there are also findings of fact that exist from the four prior times it was denied and that <br /> nothing has changed with this request. <br /> Page 16 of 33 <br />