Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> VonFeldt indicated it is. VonFeldt noted they cannot continue with this design if the second floor bump <br /> out is denied and that they would have to come back with a plan for a squared front. VonFeldt stated he <br /> is not sure how that process would work and whether his application would need to be tabled tonight. <br /> VonFeldt noted there was an application earlier tonight that requested a lakeshore setback variance that <br /> was granted and that he does not feel like he is asking for too much. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out the house is growing towards the lake. <br /> Thiesse stated technically he is not since he is cutting the corners back. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the upstairs is growing. Schoenzeit stated simply because someone has a first floor that <br /> encroaches into the average lakeshore setback does not guarantee the second level encroachment. <br /> Schoenzeit commented he is surprised the neighbors have not expressed any concern about that <br /> encroaching into their view. <br /> VonFeldt requested the aerial photograph be displayed. VonFeldt stated the home to the left is what they <br /> are attempting to avoid. The second story of that home is simply a wall and there would be no visual <br /> interruption. The home on the right is a single-story home on a 100-foot lot. VonFeldt stated this project <br /> would impact their view of the other neighbor's wall. <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff is recommending that the second floor addition stop at the setback line. <br /> Curtis stated it should stop where it exists now and allow the expansion within the 75-foot into the green <br /> area on the sketch. Curtis pointed out the new structure in the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated Staff is trying <br /> to discourage additional structure toward the lake. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the flip side to the argument is that it may become more acceptable but that it is not <br /> really as aesthetically pleasing or an efficient use of the space. <br /> McGrann asked if the existing deck outlined in green would be removed. <br /> Curtis stated if the applicant chooses to rebuild that, he can since it is an existing encroachment. <br /> McGrann asked if he is requesting the red area and the green area on the bottom. <br /> VonFeldt indicated he is and that the red on the bottom depicts a deck. <br /> Schoenzeit noted that would still be considered structure. <br /> VonFeldt stated he just wanted to make sure it was clear that it was not the house that was sticking out <br /> that far. <br /> Leskinen stated she does not mind the bump out portion or the square deck on the bottom, but that the top <br /> portion is the issue. Leskinen stated she would rather see what is being proposed than a big massive wall, <br /> but that she is not sure the Planning Commission has the grounds to approve it. <br /> Landgraver stated there is a single-story on one side and a two-story box on the other. Landgraver stated <br /> in terms of massing, he is not sure it is in character with the neighborhood. <br /> Page 38 of 53 <br />