03-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ Curtis replied in the affirmative and said the side setback on this property is shown at 10 feet which is the district setback. However, the lot is narrower than the district standard so they have that flexibility. Although it is shown that there is a slight encroachment, that is not accurate; it meets the setback. Ressler said the rest they need to deliberate is whether or not the Planning Commission feels comfortable encroaching further in to the lakeshore setback inside the 75. He asked if he is reading it correctly that right now, they are at 79.6. Curtis replied yes that is correct. The existing deck is shown in the dotted rectangle within the proposed deck. Ressler said it undulates because of the shoreline. Curtis said the 75-foot setback does, yes. Libby said the idea that Orono has a standard for the setback always becomes more complicated when they have a meandering lakeshore. Being this already had an existing encroachment into the ALS, he does not see any practical difficulties involved in this, but there are practical matters of use that have been explained. He tends to agree with Staff, he thinks this is something that is workable, especially with the willingness to offset some of the hard surface issues. If Kirchner understands correctly, Staff’s recommendation is to approve average lakeshore and hardcover but denial of the variance within the proposed deck area, which would then be the extension or addition of the deck area. As discussed previously he always struggles to further an encroachment and go beyond it even further; if they are going at, to, or scaling back he is usually okay with it but struggles when adding additional encroachment, especially regarding the lakeshore. Ressler noted regarding the irregular shoreline, the policies generally call for that to not be a straight line but to follow the lakeshore. If he looks at it and draws a straight line, there is no place to measure based on these plans. He asked if the measurement is based on the closest of the movement of that shoreline. Curtis said that 75-foot measurement is the closest point to the lake, the red setback indicated. She said the Applicant’s surveyor provided an updated survey showing the 75-foot setback as a line that cuts across the property and said they plan to adjust the deck to conform to the 75-foot setback. Ressler asked if that is how the application is right now or if that will be amended. Curtis clarified they have not provided the updated plans but are willing to do so. Ressler said it appears that the Applicant has agreed to stay within that 75-foot setback, make the amendments to hardcover, and the City does not have a problem with the stairs. He noted they could entertain a motion to approve as applied with the amendment that the structure stays within the guidelines of the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000074, 746 Tonkawa Road as applied with the amendment that the structure does not encroach upon the 75-foot lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.