Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> McGrann stated he likes the shape of the house and that the view from the lake will look better. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicants have put a lot of time and effort into designing a more efficient space but <br /> that it is still a lot of house for the lot. <br /> Leskinen noted the structural coverage is decreasing. Leskinen stated the biggest question for the <br /> Planning Commission is Staff's recommendation for denial of the portion of the requested lake setback <br /> variance to allow further encroachment within the 75-foot setback. <br /> Schoenzeit questioned whether efficiency or architectural aesthetics should trump code. <br /> Leskinen asked if the house is currently in the 0-75 foot setback. <br /> Curtis indicated the 75-foot setback goes right through the house. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the question is how the Planning Commission feels about how it looks from the lake <br /> and where the addition sits. <br /> Thiesse stated the applicants have rounded off the sightlines on the lower level and that this is an <br /> extension of that design, which goes towards the practical difficulty. Thiesse stated the 75-foot setback <br /> criteria also consists of what it looks like from the lake. <br /> Leskinen stated she agrees it would look better if the rounded design extends upward rather than having it <br /> rounded at the bottom and square at the top. <br /> Thiesse stated it is being driven from the practical difficulty down below. <br /> Lemke stated in his view it is a design element. <br /> Leskinen stated it would be an improvement visually from the lake and would be stepped back slightly. <br /> Thiesse noted that portion actually is being stepped forward and not back. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the applicants have made a good faith effort on the ground level to <br /> conform, and for consistency and perception from the lake, the second floor is being moved forward and <br /> fol(ows the shape of the first floor. Landgraver noted typically the Planning Commission does not <br /> approve more encroachments in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Thiesse stated the portion that is recommended for denial is the existing wall that is being pushed forward <br /> on top of existing structure. Thiesse noted the applicants are not increasing the structural footprint and <br /> are decreasing the structural coverage. <br /> VonFeldt stated if you took off the angled pieces, it would be all the way across. VonFeldt stated they are <br /> proposing the roofline of the first floor be pushed further back than what it currently is. <br /> Thiesse asked if the green portion is the deck. <br /> Page 37 of 53 <br />