Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16, 2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued <br /> Mabusth concurred, stating that even during the first series of meetings, the Planning <br /> Commission stated that eaves and all structure must meet the 50' encroachment limitation. <br /> Hawn felt the proposal to be an extremely tight proposition for the lot, and indicated that the road <br /> issues were real, issues with the cross-easements exist, and the County would not likely allow <br /> them to cut away at the hill to obtain a backout area. She urged the applicant to look to the <br /> future should the neighbors not be as cooperative as they are now and could not support the <br /> home being moved further into the drive or traveled roadway. Hawn added that she had <br /> reservations with regard to allowing the side yard setback as well, as the two houses are already <br /> very close to one another. <br /> Chair Smith maintained that the extra foot does not impact emergency access too much, and <br /> pointed out that access will likely need to occur from the other side altogether. While she felt the <br /> applicant had done much to meet the City's needs, Smith indicated that the prow, as proposed, <br /> encroaching into the traveled driveway does not work well with the Planning Commission. She <br /> felt the Commission could support the side yard setback and parking spot only. <br /> Jeanne Welsh asked why the Planning Commission was restricting Mr. Welsh from protruding <br /> into the driveway and not restricting the first neighbor from doing so. <br /> Fritzler maintained that the first home is nonconforming currently and, when given the <br /> opportunity for redevelopment, the Planning Commission will require that it not stay that way <br /> and more closely meet the code. <br /> Mabusth reiterated that the Planning Commission is defining what the future development will <br /> be along that roadway by this property. This is the first step in that direction. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the Planning Commission could approve some of the revised application, <br /> including the shift of the side lot line by one foot. <br /> Mabusth asked if the Commission needed to define the new setback requirement from the <br /> roadway. <br /> Weinberger stated that,beyond the standard conditions, it could be appropriate to define the <br /> setback from the traveled roadway as 35'. <br /> Rahn stated that the first footprint reflected a 53' lakeshore setback, with eaves allowed a 48.5' <br /> setback. He suggested a 33' rear side setback in order to give the applicant some parameters for <br /> both the lake and street side to work with. <br /> Mabusth indicated that she could, once again, support 660 s.f of hardcover and a 50' lakeshore <br /> setback, as stated in the August meeting. She questioned why the applicant did not use this <br /> PAGE 5 <br />