Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 16,2019 <br /> 6:30 p.m. <br /> noticed as a public hearing,the Mayor typically invites comments on applications. That amendment is <br /> outside of this application,which is based on the ordinance as it is written today. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon stated for this lot to maintain a 180-degree view, it would be easier if the shoreline was <br /> straight. The Planning Commission has to consider the existing house, and in some aspects the applicants <br /> are accommodating and moving the house back. The builder has done a pretty good job at moving it and <br /> in some sense increasing the lake view for the neighbor. Setbacks are tough, but you have to look at each <br /> side. McCutcheon stated in his opinion it is actually better, but he understands that is subjective. <br /> Ressler asked how far the structure is going to improve the average lakeshore setback from the existing <br /> structure. <br /> Curtis indicated it is an improvement of ten feet but not in the same location. The distance is measured <br /> from the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed side setback would be 17 feet from Ms. Marks' <br /> property to the closest point, which would be the garage, and 59 feet from the lot line on the other side. <br /> McCutcheon commented there is a little corner that appears to jut out more than the existing corner. <br /> Curtis stated the porch is a new piece and some of the proposed house is within the footprint of the other <br /> buildings. <br /> Ressler noted a friendly amendment by the applicant is the red line which goes through the tree. <br /> Curtis stated there should be time between this meeting and the Council meeting to update the survey and <br /> meet with the neighbors. <br /> Erickson noted the new structure is further back from the lake by ten feet and also further away from the <br /> neighbor to the north by eight or nine feet on the side setback. Many times a proposal does not meet all <br /> of the City standards but it moves in a positive direction toward meeting those standards, which is what is <br /> happening in this situation. If it came to that or nothing, he would support it as it was proposed. Tonight <br /> they have the unusual situation where the applicant is considering some adjustments, which might <br /> possibly make things more acceptable to others in the neighborhood. If the applicants are truly willing to <br /> do that,then he certainly would not want to get in their way, but it really is difficult to try to do this on the <br /> run here. If adjustments are to be made,then perhaps the Planning Commission might need to table it <br /> tonight. <br /> Curtis asked if there is something in particular he is looking for in addition to the red line. Curtis stated if <br /> there is consensus on the direction to the applicant, it would not be necessary to table it. <br /> Ressler stated tabling it is a last resort and that he would prefer they get it in front of the Council to make <br /> a decision. If they are identifying a sightline of 62 degrees from the existing structure,that would be a <br /> measurable request, if that is agreeable. <br /> Bollis stated he likes the red line plan. The proposal in 2D looks like an improvement but in 3D that <br /> structure is also getting a lot taller. There is nothing in the ordinance that talks about height but just linear <br /> setbacks. If they can accommodate the neighbors,he would be supportive of that. <br /> Page 7 of 24 <br />