06/18/2012 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,June 18,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. The defined average lakeshore setback line angles across the applicant's lot near its midpoint,rendering the front half of the lot unbuildable unless a variance is granted. The back half of the lot is constrained by a wetland classified in the Preserve category,requiring a 50-foot buffer and a 20-foot buffer setback. This combination,plus the required 30-foot side setbacks,yields a trapezoidal building envelope approximately 90 feet wide and averaging 100 feet deep. The proposed house would encroach approximately 58 feet past the average setback line measured perpendicular to that line. The request for an average setback variance is in part based on preservation of a wooded area within the back half of the property. The front of the main portion of the house will be located in an open area abutting the woods. The L-shape of the proposed house,plus the proposed pool,will still substantially impact the woods. Placing the proposed house to meet the average setback would have a much greater impact on the woods. Absent the average setback issue,the best house location to preserve the wooded area would be to place it even more lakeward of the defined average setback line than proposed. The applicant also notes that setting the house further back will increase the costs of connecting to sewer as well as require additional driveway. These factors are inherent to the lot regardless of the size/shape of any house located to meet the average setback. The Planning Commission should consider whether the views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be impacted by the proposed residence.The applicant notes that the lake views from 1900 Shoreline will not be impacted by the proposed structures. Whether views of the lake enjoyed by 1920 Shoreline are impacted is a more difficult question. The applicant has provided a number of photos of the property from various perspectives. One perspective that is not shown is from the windows at 1920 during winter leaf-off conditions. The applicant also notes that existing pine trees on the applicant's property already block 1920's views year-round. The applicant has discussed the proposed house location with the neighboring property owners but Staff has not had direct communications from the most affected owner at 1920 Shoreline. A letter opposing the variance has been submitted from the owner at 1900 Shoreline. It should be noted that the home on the property at 1950 Heritage Drive sits to the rear of the house at 1900 Shoreline Drive but could technically also be considered as a"residence building on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lot," because 1950 Heritage also extends to the shoreline just east of 1900 Shoreline. Whether the owner of 1950 Heritage has any concerns is unknown. The Planning Commission should consider the following factors: 1. Are there existing views of the lake from the neighboring residence structure at 1920 Shoreline Drive? If so,what impacts does the applicants'proposed house location have on those existing views? 2. Are there existing views of the lake from the neighboring residence that would be"seasonal only" due to the types of vegetation present? Over which property are those views, 1910 or 1920? If that vegetation was to be removed or changed for whatever reason,how would such removal or change impact those views? The City does not regulate the tree removal or preservation except within the 0-75 foot setback zone,which in this case is mostly encumbered by the county road and its right-of-way. The woods to the rear of the property enjoys no special protection other than the 50-foot buffer abutting the wetland is required to be maintained as-is. Page 10