Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, September 21, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Gettman said he is struggling because there appear to be a number of neighbors who, from whatever <br />timeframe or purpose, have been allowed to encroach on that setback. <br /> <br />Kirchner said he struggles to encroach further or even in this case to break into that envelope of <br />encroaching into a setback. While he understands there are others in the neighborhood and nearby, he <br />noted it is not a like-kind improvement but a new construction addition to the home and he doesn’t <br />believe he can support it. <br /> <br />Erickson stated they’ve been cautioned about designing someone’s project for them, but noted it’s so <br />basic, and asked if it’s correct if the ordinance looks for a 15-foot driveway and the Applicant is <br />requesting a 14-foot driveway to allow the construction of a new 24-foot deep addition. He asked if it <br />was a 23-foot addition, that the driveway requirement would be met. <br /> <br />Ms. Oakden answered that is correct, for driveway standards, the City requires a 15-foot space of <br />driveway equal to the width of the garage doors, which is one of the applicable variances for this <br />application. She noted if they made it 15-feet, that variance would then be resolved, but it would not <br />resolve the street-yard setback variance. Depending on how that changes as it pertains to average <br />lakeshore setback, she is not sure if one foot would resolve that setback, they’d need to see how it would <br />be applied. <br />Chair Ressler asked if average lakeshore setback would still be a concern. <br /> <br />Ms. Oakden said the homeowner would have to show it, she’s not sure if one foot would resolve that <br />setback encroachment. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler commented that he thinks it can be done by changing it and not getting into the average <br />lakeshore setback, noting it looks like it’s a worsening of a condition looking at the current steps versus <br />the proposed steps. He stated he doesn’t think he’s in favor of it as it’s proposed. <br /> <br />Libby agreed with Chair Ressler, noting he’s trying very hard to get his head around why Staff would’ve <br />denied this based on a Practical Difficulty, as he is still trying to look for it. He said he listened to a <br />relatively articulate presentation by the homeowner, who addressed somewhat sensitive and familiar <br />issues that are dear to his heart (having to do with Veterans). However, he still cannot find the Practical <br />Difficulty and tends to agree with Staff and he cannot support it. <br /> <br />Gettman asked to confirm regarding the required setback, if Staff could confirm the setback Erickson <br />referred to, if it’s 15 feet or 30 feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Oakden replied it is both, noting it is 2 variances: one is a 30 foot building setback for the street-yard, <br />and one is a 15 foot driveway standard from the garage doors. <br /> <br />Gettman noted there is a third variance which is the lakeshore setback. <br /> <br />Ms. Oakden responded yes, the average lakeshore setback. She said there is a fourth variance for a wide <br />driveway in the 75, where they only allow 8 feet so they’d need a variance to allow the construction of a <br />wider driveway. She clarified that as proposed, the Application would trigger four variances.