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 lawn 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 Planning <br /> Commission to require the Applicant to reduce the height of the structure. Kluth noted the <br /> structure is below the maximum 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. Hawn 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 /> Hawn 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 with 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 /> Gneffke stated he is willing to reduce the pitch to 10/12. <br /> • <br /> PAGE 4 <br />