Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 21, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 12 of 13 <br /> <br />Mr. Eskuche is willing to make an attempt. <br /> <br />Ressler clarified the Commission can give feedback and Mr. Eskuche can bring an amended proposal to <br />the City Council. Ressler would be supportive of this if they made those changes discussed. <br /> <br />Libby noted in going up over existing is kind of a moot point when there is already such an encroachment <br />into the 75 foot setback. Any massing will not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and the City does not <br />add encroachments into the 75 foot setback. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon is uneasy with going up and blocking lake view. He would not be in support of the <br />application. <br /> <br />Kraemer asked if they could design the chimney within the footprint. He asked if by going upwards they <br />will be blocking someone else’s lake views and thinks City Council would want to see a study on that. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Oakden clarified that typically the 75 foot setback is the stricter and <br />the average lakeshore setback (ALS) is then set further away from the lake being the limiting factor for a <br />building envelope. This lot is unique in that the ALS is actually the closer setback to the lake and the 75 <br />foot setback is the more-strict setback. The chimney, front door porch addition, and garage space area are <br />all footprint expansions. Regarding the second story expansion which is directly upward, the Commission <br />has acted in support of second story additions in the ALS but oftentimes that does not overlap within the <br />75 foot setback, as well. This is a very unique layout in that the second story is both in the ALS and in the <br />75 foot setback in this scenario. <br /> <br />Ressler is in support of adding massing but would like to see no addition within the ALS. Anything <br />behind the ALS he would be in support of, as long as it stays in the conformities of structure, hardcover, <br />and is not increasing or worsening that situation. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon’s position is adding massing behind the blue line onscreen but not to increase <br />hardcover which is very hard to do. <br /> <br />Ressler noted he cannot approve as applied but thinks they could entertain a motion to decline with <br />feedback for the Applicant to revise plans. He noted it sounds like Kraemer is in support of the <br />application as applied. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon would decline with feedback that any structure added should be behind the average <br />lakeshore setback (blue line). <br /> <br />Libby tends to agree with Staff’s initial denial. He agrees with nothing beyond the average lakeshore <br />setback and certainly nothing that would add encroachment into the 75 foot setback. <br /> <br />Libby moved, Ressler seconded, to deny LA22-000055 Eskuche Design, 3838 Cherry Avenue, <br />Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 3, Nays 1 (Kraemer). <br /> <br />5. LA22-000056 PATRICK REGAN WITH JDD STUDIO, 200 WOODHILL ROAD, <br />REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION <br />TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO A GOLF COURSE USE. <br />