01/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON,CONTINUED) Bremer inquired what the purpose of the chimneys is. Nelson stated the chimneys are approximately eight feet high to keep the roof fairly clean from smoke and soot residue. Leslie inquired whether the model house could be oriented to depict what it would look like if it were outside the average lakeshore setback. Munson stated he would then encroach on the setbacks if the average lakeshore setback is complied with and that he would not be able to use the same foundation. Bremer noted the city engineer expressed some concerns regarding the integrity of the foundation. Munson stated they would need to look at that,but that he would also lose some of his view of the lake if the house were relocated. Nelson pointed out the trees cut off the view of the lake. Kempf indicated he did pace off the lot and that with each foot back from the proposed location of the house the lakeshore disappears rather quickly and dramatically due to the trees. Kempf stated the tree line creates a little funnel and diminishes the lake view. Kempf stated it appears the topography of the lot on the other side of the house was reduced at the time the house was constructed. Gaffron concurred that it appears there was some dirt removed at the time the house was constructed. Kempf stated in his view this is a unique situation and that the Planning Commission has made exceptions to the average lakeshore setback in the past. Kempf noted the roofline was lowered in consideration of the neighbors. Kempf stated if permission is obtained from the neighbor to the north and if the drainage works around the south, with the Munsons reaching agreement with the neighbor or keeping the drainage on this site, he would not be opposed to the application. Munson stated they have reached agreement with the neighbors on the driveway. Munson stated his lawyer is in the process of working out the easement. Bremer stated Wageners' second issue regarding the driveway has been alleviated,but the third issue raises a concern about placement of fill within five feet of the property line. Munson stated there could be a problem with the drainage if he is not allowed to fill within five feet of the property line. Munson stated he would need to come down approximately six feet form the south side of the building and at a 45-degree angle. Kempf questioned whether the drainage could be resolved by filling within five feet of the property line. PAGE 16