11-16-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. something like this to solve this kind of problem is very, very common. He has done it himself. To Mr. Kirchner's point, it is really just adjunct to his own,but it is simply a point of information,they cannot direct in one way or the other. He is glad they had the neighbor here that could speak to it, and Mr. Stickney here to hear it. Chair Ressler does not see any reason why they could center or at the very least have equal distances between the two lot lines,there is structure on one side and not on the other. He would love to see the property centered or even if it was proposed to be inverted. He does not necessarily know that he would be opposed to the application as proposed; he does not see any reason why,besides what has been mentioned as far as one setback from the other. He noted they have approved these projects before, and he generally follows Staffs opinion on this one recommending approval,he definitely would recognize the suggestion of giving more space and taking up some of the space from the north to the south as constructive feedback that might be helpful for passing with the Council,if this were to pass. He is not opposed to the application as submitted. McCutcheon asked to confirm that deck to the north is 15 feet from the lot,as well. Ms. Oakden clarified the neighbor right here is roughly 16 feet. McCutcheon said to him, it is private property to the north and the south and you must be fair, so perhaps they pick a minimum, so 16 feet from where the neighbor to the north is and 16 feet as the minimum setback north and south. He knows they cannot redraw it, but what they're really saying is the proposed house envelope instead of 16.5 is 16. He said it seems silly to say, but just to be fair, as the neighbor to the south has just as much right to say they wish it was 2-3 feet to the north. Chair Ressler said perhaps this is an opportunity for the Commission to have a workshop discussion as to how they should be handling these. Right now,he thinks the feedback from the City is that they want the Commission to rule on what they have and provide feedback so it can be taken for review to the Council and it does not get held up but they know exactly what they are ruling on. Based on that, Chair Ressler is hearing some Commissioners are opposed to the application as submitted and must be mindful of what is in front of them. There has been some good feedback regardless of the outcome as to what would be agreeable. McCutcheon said it would be good to have documented evidence of the neighbor to the south's input on this. It is a unique situation where it is a skinny lot and there are not a lot of options for the future homeowner to have and the Commission is trying to avoid problems in the future. If they only have half the equation it is tough. He asked if Staff went to the neighbors asking for input. Ms. Oakden noted they mailed postings. Mr. Stickney added two impacts. First, regarding the neighbor to the south with the flag lot,he sold a relative of their property and the neighbor was thinking about selling. Mr. Stickney said what are they ever going to do with that flag, and the neighbor responded it has always been there, it is solid trees right to the soccer field. He told the neighbor they will never build a road on that, as it is a flag that is environmentally nuts...he told them it would be $200,000 to correct the soils,remove all the trees, and this plan right now fits on here really well. Moving it a foot and a half south,has an impact on trees. This should be an approvable plan in most every possibility and he can't see any reason it would not be totally approvable. Given a variable,he likes some of the comments; let's make it so they can come back Page 17 of 23