Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />June 20, 2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Ressler asked about setbacks. <br />Nye said the application slightly increased side -yard setback but staff is not concerned about that as much <br />as the height and hardcover. The building would not be any closer to the lake. <br />Andrew Iverson, 5558 North Shore Dr., said they are stuck in a unique property between the lake and a <br />busy road. He said they have gotten approval letters from several of the neighbors concerning the height <br />increase and the plan would not block any neighbor's view. They are alongside a channel and close <br />neighbors face the lake. He said they wanted the rooftop terrace because they lack a lot of sunlight due to <br />mature trees and saw it as a safe play space for their children since there is a lake on one side and a busy <br />road on the other. They would also plan a rooftop garden. Windows on the front were converted to doors <br />but the family hasn't used them because they go straight to the lake which is unsafe for children, and for <br />that reason, they don't plan stairs. They noted they were within the 30 -foot height restrictions and also <br />don't have a basement. The applicant pointed out another house in the area with a rooftop terrace that he <br />feels encroaches a great deal more. <br />Acting Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Acting Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. <br />Ressler asked about grade for the height, noting that the road is higher than the property. <br />Nye said the grade is figured from the base of the house, not the road. <br />Erickson asked to see the illustration of the actual proposed addition. He said he was concerned about the <br />height issue for other properties and that the proposed height seems to magnify the setback issue. <br />Schultze asked if the addition could block the view of the lake of people across the road. <br />The applicant explained that the direct view is of the channel. <br />Kraemer said he feels like this falls into the best they can do. He understands the staffs concern about <br />height but noted that neighbors are not in objection. <br />Ressler said he usually likes to side with staff but the lot is almost unbuildable and the applicant has the <br />support of neighbors. He expressed concern about hardcover staying below the applied amount but said <br />he would support the application because it is going up on a structure that is already there. He would not <br />want to see any further side -yard encroachment. <br />Iverson said when they purchased the house they removed a significant amount of hardcover and there is <br />another old walkway they could remove. <br />Libby said he still sees a problem in that there has not been an establishment of practical difficulties that <br />warrants so many variances. He said he was thinking more in the spirit of the codes and how they are <br />enforced. <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />