11-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� �-- MINUTES OF THE I�--�� —��, ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 27, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.111. 6. #05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA IVIUNSON, 3165 NORTI3 SHORE DRIVE— VARIANC�/CONDITIONAL USE PEI2MIT Gaffron explained that the applicants request for an average lakeshore setback variance and a conditional use pernzit for importation of fill in excess of 500 cubic yards to allow for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the�roperty received a 3-3 vote by the Planning Conunission at its Februaiy 215f ineeting, At issue, which deadlocked the Planning Commission,was the 22' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback which the neighbor objected to. Though drainage is an ongoing issue, Gaffron noted that the proposed fill within 5' of the neighbor's lot line which��vould have visual impact upon the view of the neighbor's wall was not resolved by the Commission and wottld do little to impact drainage�roblems. Since this is new conshuction and should be required to ineet setback requirements, Muiphy stated that whether or not the existing house meets the average lakeshore setback now is irrelevant. Admittedly an odd average lakeshore setback line,Murphy saw no hardship to wan�ant any encroachment into the zone, since there was more thail adequate room to pull the house back altogether.With regard to the fill, Murphy stated that the lot had been filled many years ago in an effort to help �vith the drainage. He niaintained that, if the house were pulled back out of the average lakeshore setUack, they wotild also need less fill to resolve the drainage. Bil� Sjoholm, applicant's attorney, stated that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Commission supported the request for fill,but it was the average lakeshore setbacic variance��hich had them at odds. While the applicant has made numerous attempts to rnake adjustments to the design in order to accommodate this alrnost tin�a�ealistic average lalceshore setback line, they believe there is a hardship here created by the line and the homeowner next door trying to prevent what is being proposed. He continued, explaining that, if the house were pulled back, it would create a tui�nel vision effect from the ne�v home through the trees on either side. Sansevere questioned whether the applicant believed that their hardship could be based on the view the average lakeshore setback afforded them. Sansevere asked Brokl whether the view of the lake could be considered a hardship. Brolcl stated that, if lhe Council chose to accept it,the views could be considered a hardship. Sjoholm pointed out that, as proposed, the applicant would not be obstructing the neighbors views of the lake. MeMillan questioned whether anything had changed�vith regard to the landscaping next door, since he had initially purchased the property. Munson stated that his lot seerns to serve as a drainage deposit area for both he and his neighbor's runoff. McMillan pointed out that the average lakeshore setbacic is a principal the City does not often choose to deviate from�vithout a strong hardship, She felt that, in this instance, the applicant could buiid easily without intruding on this setback. PAGE 7 of 1=t