Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />AUGUST 21,2000 <br />(Ace Properties, Continued) <br />Bakke expressed concerns regarding drainage should the land elevation be increased along the <br />new structure, and requested that the existing driveway be eliminated next to his existing driveway <br />and be planted with growing lav-m or landscape should the driveway be relocated. <br />Hawn noted the neighbor has concerns relating to height since it would block his view of the lake, <br />hardcover issues relating to the existing driveway, and would like the residence to be located <br />further back. Hawn indicated this would be considered new construction, with a variance needed <br />to build on the property since it is a non-conforming lot. Hawn stated this proposed building <br />would be located behind the average lakeshore setback, noting that every house located on this <br />block is also located within the average lakeshore setback. <br />Bakke stated his view of the lake is a very important issue to him. <br />Kluth commented a change to the height ordinance would be necessary in order for the Plaiming <br />Commission to require the Applicant to reduce the height of the structure. Kluth noted the <br />structure is below the ma.ximum allowed by the City's ordinance. <br />Weinberger stated one issue for the Planning Commission to consider is the portion of the house <br />that would be located within the 0-75 ’ setback. Weinberger concurred that the proposed structure <br />does meet the City’s height ordinance. Weinberger noted the existing building is located just <br />over six feet from the property line, with the new structure to be located 13 feet from the lot line. <br />Lindquist commented if the structure were located 75’ from the lakeshore, the house would be <br />three feet from the rear property line. <br />Hawn commented the City needs to be aware of the increasing height of the structures in this area <br />and that perhaps a review of the ordinance is in order. Ha\vn noted the Planning Commission is <br />not in a position to say that the Applicant cannot build the structure to the proposed height, but can <br />look at whether the structure should remain out of the 0-75 ’ setback. Hawn commented the real <br />issue before the Planning Commission is the location of the proposed structure. <br />Gniffke stated they have made an effort to purchase that piece of property from the railroad, to no <br />success. Gniffke stated they have attempted to address the loss of view. <br />Hawu inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the house relocated out of the <br />0-75 ’ setback. <br />Lindquist commented in his view ’ they should stay w ith the eight foot rear yard setback. <br />Nygard commented it would be difficult to reduce the rear yard setback to three feet. Nygard <br />noted the existing carport is still further forward than the proposed house, with the proposed new <br />house largely offsetting any encroachment into the side yard setbacks. <br />Berg commented she would still like to see a different pitch on the proposed residence even <br />though what is currently proposed is allowed under the ordinance. <br />GnefHce stated he is willing to reduce the pitch to 10/12. <br />PAGE 4 <br />I