PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #5) DAVID L. AND MARGARET H. VERGEYLE - cont. Lindquist asked for further explanation of the grading plan. Mabusth explained that filling would stop at the main foundation to the lakeside of the home. Rowlette asked to see a diagram with the footprint of the house. Peterson inquired about the proposed roof drains noting that in a recent application a unique percolation system had been designed to address erosion. Mabusth responded that the applicants had no hardcover problem and the roof drains were proposed to minimize potential erosion. She noted there is a wetland at the bottom of the property. The property has a right to have a dock but certain standards must be followed to minimize any impact. Rowlette asked who would be involved in the dock approval. Mabusth replied there would be a City permit required and review by the LMCD. The dock would have to be placed at the 929.4 elevation. Schroeder reiterated that erosion must be a major concern to the owners and builder. He asked if it made sense to move the house into the 50' street setback area. Nolan questioned if the filling would be minimized if the house were moved 10' closer to the • street but not up to the street to take advantage of the flat area. He expressed his appreciation for the care the applicants took to stay out of the 50' setback area but was unsure if that was the most important thing in this case. Nolan thought the house could be juggled around the septic drainfield. David Vergeyle thought that was possible but noted they bought the property also because of the lakeviews and wanted to keep that as a consideration. Schroeder noted there was a general willingness to consider a variance to the 50' setback in exchange for improving the erosion issue. The applicants indicated there was a financial incentive to consider moving the house back 10'. Rowlette expressed her views against granting variances on a new lot. She felt there were solutions such as changing the design of the house. Margaret Vergeyle explained that the house had been designed based on the setbacks they knew about. Nolan agreed that the applicants did not know they were going to have the bluff problem and was willing to consider a modification to the street setback. He was not suggesting any encroachment to the septic system. He did not feel 10' was an absolute number and the applicants should work toward a number around 10'. David Vergeyle asked if there would be a problem with the side yard setback since that side faced the neighbor's garage. Nolan did not think there would be a problem. 0 is