Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 18,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 3. Are there potential negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood other than regarding lake <br /> views if the variance is granted? Are there other negative impacts to the neighborhood if the <br /> variance is not granted? <br /> 4. Does the Commission find it necessary or appropriate to impose conditions in order to minimize <br /> or mitigate the impacts created by the granting of an average setback variance? For instance, <br /> revising the house location or design to reduce the impacts? Or requiring permanent removal of <br /> specific vegetation elements on the applicant's property to replace any lost views due to house <br /> location? <br /> 5. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a � <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 6. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted,will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. The Planning Commission must <br /> determine whether there are existing or potential views enjoyed by the neighbors that would be negatively <br /> impacted by granting of the variance. If there are no negative impacts,a recommendation for approval <br /> would be appropriate. If there are negative impacts,the Planning Commission should consider whether <br /> , they can be minimized or resolved by relocating or redesigning the proposed house or mitigated by some <br /> other actions or conditions. <br /> Thiesse asked if the property owner behind the 1900 building has a say in the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view that property owner should have a say because it is a lakeshore lot with a <br /> unique configuration. <br /> Landgraver asked where the 75-foot setback is. <br /> Gaffron indicated it is almost congruent with the north line of the county road. <br /> Walsh stated the house next door that is sitting in the back has a very small amount of lakeshore frontage <br /> and that the only location to construct a house on this lot would be in the same location as the existing <br /> house. <br /> Levang asked where the building envelope is. <br /> Gaffron illustrated the building envelope and the proposed location of the house on the overhead. <br /> Gaffron stated if the house is pushed further back,there would still be the issue of the average lakeshore <br /> setback as well as an additional area of woodland that would be impacted. <br /> Lemke stated the garage wing appears to be out of proportion to the house. <br /> Gaffron stated the proposed house has been proposed by the applicant and that it is up to the applicant to <br /> change that. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission can suggest alternatives if they so choose. <br /> Levang asked how tall the garage is and whether there is a second story to the garage. <br /> Page <br /> 11 <br />