Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 15,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Oakden noted that was one of the questions outlined in Staff report. The current house does encroach into <br /> the average lakeshore setback, so it is nonconforming as it exists today, and the proposal is requesting to <br /> be closer to the lake. The applicant is looking to be more in line with the two other nearby residences, <br /> and without an average lakeshore setback variance,this lot would be almost unbuildable. The question is <br /> whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the degree to which is being proposed. <br /> McCutcheon asked what the side setbacks are. <br /> Oakden indicated the property is allowed a 7.8-foot setback and to the south they are proposing an 8-foot <br /> setback and to the north they are proposing a 12.5-foot setback. <br /> McCutcheon commented drainage is always a concern when the houses are that close, but that will be <br /> dealt with at the time of building permit. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments relating to this application. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br /> Libby commented since there is not that much difference between the existing footprint and what is being <br /> proposed on the lakeshore side,this is something that would be worthy of the Planning Commission's <br /> consideration and that he would like to hear further discussion. The lakeshore setback is the primary <br /> concern due to the possibility of setting a precedent,but under the circumstances,the proposal is not that <br /> much more than what currently exists. Libby stated if you look at the alignment for the average lakeshore <br /> setback without the house to the north that is further set back,the line would be in a different location. <br /> Erickson stated his sense of the average lakeshore setback is to regulate the situation where houses are at <br /> similar setbacks. The rules create an issue when there are flag lots and the main house is located quite a <br /> bit back from the other homes in the area. A good item to discuss at some point is the City's future <br /> treatment of flag lots and whether something can be done with that ordinance to deal with this type of <br /> situation. Erickson stated at the present time he would support the application. <br /> McCucheon stated common sense-wise,the new house aligns with the other neighbors and will not be <br /> extending into the lake setback any more than the neighbors are, so he would support it. <br /> Bollis commented he likes the fact the hardcover is being reduced. The intent of the lakeshore setback <br /> ordinance is to protect the view shed and it does not appear the view shed would be any different for the <br /> house to the north, so he would be in favor of it. <br /> Gettman indicated he has no concerns with the application. <br /> Ressler asked if structural coverage is being increased. <br /> Oakden indicated it is but that it will be within the allowable amount. The current hardcover is at 30.5 <br /> percent and they are proposing to decrease it to 29.5 percent, but it is still over the allowable 25 percent. <br /> Page 6 of 17 <br />