Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, July 16, 2018 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Lemke commented the request seems reasonable. <br />Olson stated there is a strong case for the fence. <br />Ressler stated he is in favor of the 6 -foot fence and would even entertain an 8 -foot fence given the <br />circumstances. Ressler stated he has not found any reason to oppose it. <br />Berg commented there are extenuating circumstances in this situation. <br />Lemke asked if the Planning Commission feels the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the <br />Ordinance. <br />Ressler commented there is not much harmony currently given the commercial activity next door. <br />Libby stated the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and that he is not sure why the neighboring <br />property should be allowed to intrude on someone's quiet and reasonable enjoyment of their property. <br />Lemke asked if the fence would alter the character of the neighborhood. <br />Berg stated it does not. <br />Erickson stated in his view it would be an improvement. <br />Ressler moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000063, Matt <br />Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, granting of a variance to the 75 -foot lakeyard setback and the <br />average lakeshore setback in order to permit the construction of a 6 -foot privacy fence. <br />VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY STRUCTURES <br />SETBACK, 7:33 P.M. — 7:53 P.M. <br />Barnhart stated this is a continuation of the conversation the Planning Commission had last month <br />regarding some proposed changes for the accessory structure setbacks. The previous discussed looked at <br />some of the zonal impacts. Since that time Staff has drafted a table based on the zonal impacts introduced <br />at the last meeting. <br />Staff has compiled an ordinance amendment. Included within the ordinance will be a table attached to <br />each residential zoning district that incorporates the lot area and lot width where that applies, the setbacks <br />for the principal structures, and then also anticipated improvements. A table will also be prepared for the <br />business districts but will be slightly different in format in order to anticipate possible improvements such <br />as parking lots and other common improvements in commercial districts. <br />Barnhart noted the tables are conceptual at this point and are intended to look at the impacts an accessory <br />structure could have. The proposed table for the LR -A1 district notes that the side yard setbacks for lots <br />that are nonconforming as to their width shall be the lessor or 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot <br />width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. The table also <br />looks at lake yard setbacks, street setbacks, wetlands, and height. Possible improvements on lake lots <br />include accessory buildings; oversized accessory buildings; accessory structures such as pools, patios, and <br />Page 9of13 <br />