Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Erickson said Staff has done a good job of reporting the facts.He supports the variance for the retaining <br /> wall with conditions as mentioned in the Staff report. <br /> McCutcheon commented the Planning Commission always denies these things,but at Camp Teko there <br /> was an incident where they wanted to update a storage shed and the Commission thought they would let it <br /> go because kids were trying to lift up gear from the lake and it would make it easier for them, and the City <br /> Council denied it. He said it is impossible to get any structure moved within the lake setback. Knowing <br /> the history, it is what it is.The existing staircase is closer to the north and the applicant said that was <br /> steep, but he may have to re-evaluate the plan if he wants to keep the shed. His opinion is in line with the <br /> rest of the Commissioners. <br /> Bollis stated he is in line with Staff and had no additional comments. <br /> Ressler said he recalled the application McCutcheon referenced. He stated if someone feels a certain way, <br /> their feedback could be given and to not be discouraged. He said this is one of the few circumstances <br /> where he is a little more open-minded. If they are not further worsening their position from the setback, <br /> not further raising the height from the current roof to the proposed structure, and not further increasing the <br /> massing of the current structure,he is okay with it being relocated to the side setback,especially since the <br /> Commission has letters of encouragement from neighbors. He said the topography puts it on a bluff which <br /> has less of an impact, if any,for sight lines to the lakeshore. He would be opposed if they were trying to <br /> relocate it within the side setback requirements,but he is in favor of it as long as it does not further <br /> encroach toward the lake, does not increase massing by height or square footage,and is not within any <br /> sort of side setback variance requirement. <br /> Erickson said this situation could also lend itself to the same type of approach that the Planning <br /> Commission had earlier,perhaps having two motions based on the Staff report which is supportive of one <br /> set of variances and denial on another type of variance. He suggested doing a split to give a clear message <br /> to the City Council. <br /> Ressler asked if Erickson wanted to make a motion on Application No. LA19-000031 based upon the <br /> Staff recommendation which included all of the language. <br /> Erickson moved to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000031 Dale Gustafson,2927 <br /> Casco Point Road,variances,based upon Staff recommendations for the proposed retaining walls <br /> and steps,with conditions as stated. <br /> Erickson suggested somebody may want to make a second motion regarding the Commissioners' opinion <br /> as far as the old structure being moved, etc. <br /> Ressler asked Staff if the applicant should be asked if they would like the Planning Commission to split <br /> the application into two different parts or if they would like a vote on the application at hand. <br /> Oakden stated the applicant could be asked. However, it is the Planning Commission's recommendation <br /> to the City Council,and if they follow Staff's recommendation in the Memo, it can be done with one <br /> motion. If the Planning Commission chooses to go in a different direction, Staff would probably ask for <br /> clearer verbiage. <br /> Page 24 of 29 <br />