Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 19,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis stated if that was the true logic for this design,then the house would look like the original plan <br /> without the 15-foot bump-out. <br /> Eric Vogstrom stated they created the bump-out because they hit the reset button. When they had the <br /> original setback line, he was fine with it, but then if he is going to go in for a variance,they want to get <br /> something that would make a little more sense. Vogstrom indicated they have been up here <br /> compromising and compromising but they have not seen anyone else compromise. Vogstrom stated in <br /> his view it is absolutely a practical difficulty given the curvature of the line. <br /> Libby asked if they returned to the original setback whether they would have the same discussion <br /> regarding encroachment of the structure. <br /> Curtis stated the only time the applicants have shown a conforming house location has been on the <br /> preliminary plat drawing but that unfortunately the average lakeshore setback line was not correct. Staff <br /> caught it when the plans were moving forward to the City Council. <br /> Thiesse noted the average lakeshore setback and the shoreline on the property are pretty much parallel <br /> and that the applicants are gaining the extra view to the west because the line goes up. Thiesse stated in <br /> his view he does not feel the applicants are losing anything. Thiesse noted this lot is a blank piece of <br /> paper and that a conforming house can be built on the lot. <br /> Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. LA18-000086,Paul <br /> Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane,granting of a variance to the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Erickson stated he would feel better about supporting the motion if the line presented at a previous <br /> meeting was still the line and that he would support a variance given the methodology that was used. <br /> Erickson stated he can see how the applicant was led to believe that that would be a workable solution <br /> and that he has a problem voting for denial at this point because he also recognizes that the applicants <br /> have put in a lot of effort into the application. Erickson stated what they are showing now is not hugely <br /> different from what was previously proposed. <br /> Thiesse stated moving the house further back is not that different either. <br /> Ressler noted the bump-out is a 15-foot difference. <br /> Thiesse stated it is his understanding Mr. Erickson was saying that he would not allow the bump-out but <br /> that he would allow the house at the previous line. <br /> Ressler stated he would also entertain approving the previous setback line since he feels there was <br /> agreement on the previous placement. <br /> Thiesse noted the setback line is incorrect and that he cannot support the variance. <br /> Landgraver stated the line is what it is as opposed to whatever the prior survey said. Landgraver stated he <br /> disagrees with the analysis and giving the applicants a pass. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Ressler and Erickson Opposed. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />