Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff recommends approval. <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff could display a picture of the neighboring home. Landgraver asked if the porch <br /> would alter the average lakeshore setback for the neighbors. <br /> Curtis indicated it would pull it out towards the lake and that the lots are tucked in there due to the cove. <br /> Landgraver commented any time there is an encroachment into the average lakeshore, it creates a <br /> creeping forward of the adjacent properties and that he is just trying to get a sense of how that would be <br /> impacted. <br /> Thiesse stated that is the reason for the 75-foot setback. <br /> Steve Schottler,Applicant, stated the ultimate goal was to modify the project. Last year they went <br /> through the process with the City and then hired a structural engineer. After getting approval on those <br /> plans, a number of contractors said that what the structural engineer wanted them to do was virtually <br /> impossible and that it would cost two to three times more than if the structure was just taken down. The <br /> thought was then to rebuild it. In doing that, it affected the previous variance and Staff recommended that <br /> a new application be filed,which is why he is back here now. <br /> The porch has been shortened six feet so it is even further from the lake,which eliminated the variance to <br /> the 75-foot setback. This is a unique situation in that the cove is on one side and the lake is on the other <br /> side. One neighbor is 65 feet from the lake and the other is 95 feet, which is where this property gets <br /> caught. Schottler stated they would like to rebuild it the right way but just a little bit smaller. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. <br /> Libby commented the meandering the shoreline makes it difficult to measure it from a straight line and <br /> that the support of the neighborhood is an important consideration. If there are no objections from the <br /> nearby neighbors,that would tend to make him favor the variances. Libby stated under the circumstances <br /> and due to the unique situation with the location of the house,he would tend to favor the variances. <br /> Ressler stated he would be in support of it considering the way the lakeshore goes and that the proposal <br /> does not look like it is an aggressive change in the average lakeshore setback line. <br /> Olson stated he is in support of it,especially since the project is smaller than what was originally <br /> approved. <br /> Landgraver commented it is an improvement over the first project, and while he has a concern with the <br /> creeping forward in the average lakeshore setback line,he is in support of it. <br /> Thiesse noted the applicant has improved upon what was approved last year,but that because the <br /> variances have expired, it should perhaps be considered a blank sheet. Thiesse stated because the <br /> Planning Commission approved variances previously,that might be the way to go. <br /> Page 6 of 16 <br />