09-14-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 17, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 29 Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Chair Ressler started the discussion with the observation that there has been quite a bit of building done on Crystal Bay Road in the past couple of years and none of them have been easy applications. He thinks the difficulties that the Applicant is facing are very similar to the difficulties of the previous applications that the Planning Commission has addressed in that neighborhood. The struggle is they are limited to what is there as it’s much easier to pass rebuilding-in-kind to existing structure. The other difficulty that they often have in Orono is average lake yard setbacks, so even though they have more breathing room before the road, the neighbor’s viewpoints need to be protected, which makes it difficult to encroach further toward the lake. Ressler said it is certainly not an easy envelope to build on but is a desirable place to live and the difficulty is that approving additional hardcover in a small space takes a lot of practical difficulty and that is what the Commission needs to deliberate on for this application. McCutcheon said Crystal Bay Road is like a broken record every time and his heart goes out to people. He said at the same time, these lots were meant as original cabin lots and although this floor plan is modest and not egregious regarding home designs today, it is what it is, they recently bought it and the hardcover is kind of the dealbreaker for the application. He again noted his heart goes out to the applicants. He said he would be inclined to go with Staff’s recommendation and deny the application. Gettman said he is looking at the neighbors lots and trying to compare, as one of the considerations is how does the house fit in with the neighborhood. As you look at some of those lots, the proposal before the Commission is going to be on the larger side of what some of the other folks have, yet at the same time it sounds like the Applicant is working with Staff to figure out how to get it as close as possible. He noted the heartache that McCutcheon felt and said the struggle is weighing how this impacts the other neighbors and what other exceptions are they going to have to allow for all of them as well, as the houses turn over and they want to do expansions. He said what the Applicant is trying to do is very conscientious in the way they are working with the architect and design and he appreciates that but that is where the Commission is stuck. Bollis had nothing additional to add and said he agrees with Staff on this application. Kirchner agreed with Staff on this application, noting while it is a very modest floor plan and house, he thinks it is too much of an ask for the size of the variances and the percentages and square footage that were over. One thing he should have asked of the architect and maybe something to clarify going forward, he sees on the plan a three or four car garage and he asked if the Commission is being asked to evaluate the space on three or four cars and does that changes the square footage proposal. Curtis noted they are asking for a three-car garage, and the elevation view of the home as well as the measurement of the garage at 30 feet indicates that it would be a small three-car garage. Mr. Sharratt said a four-car garage was a dream and was a holdover from the preliminary plan, but clarified it would be a three-car garage. Erickson said the Staff has done a wonderful job of sorting out the complexity of the various variances required and he is supportive of their conclusion that variances are justified for most of the proposal. However, he agrees that this goes to the intent of the ordinance and in this case it appears that the intent is very clear that with the smaller size of the lot in this zoning category a special effort was made by the drafters of the ordinance that there would be a cap of 2,000 feet. That level of specificity is not present in