Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 18,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver stated there are concerns about the view for the house to the west and that there are a number <br /> of trees closer to Shoreline Drive. Landgraver asked what the intent is with the trees. Landgraver stated <br /> conceivably if some of those trees were removed, it might improve the view for 1920. <br /> Leskinen noted the owner of the property has already indicated he would be willing to remove some of <br /> the trees to improve the neighbors' views. <br /> Klinger stated it is her understanding that some of the trees cannot be removed due to regulations. <br /> Gaffron noted only the trees within 75 feet of the shoreline are protected. Gaffron pointed out the 75-foot <br /> line on the overhead. <br /> . Doughterty pointed there are also trees along the shoreline and that the issue is more than the lake views. <br /> Fehresti stated the trees on the lake are low and not as tall as the other trees. <br /> Landgraver asked what the intention is with the trees more towards the street. <br /> Smuckler stated Dr.Fehresti would like to remove some of those trees,which would also help open the <br /> views far the 1920 property. <br /> Coward stated he finds it objectionable that the trade-off is, if you have a problem with your view,to cut <br /> down some of the trees. From the lake,the view will be of a cleared shoreline. <br /> Mark Jenson, 1520 Minnie Avenue, indicated he is not able to stay for the rest of the meeting and that he <br /> is here on Item No. 6. Jenson stated he is in favor of the application. <br /> Thiesse noted the house at 1920 required a variance to be constructed and that is the house that is <br /> dictating where this house gets built. Thiesse pointed out that the average lakeshore setback line is being <br /> determined from the adjacent corner of the house,which is the one closest to the lake, so the line is <br /> . somewhat skewed. <br /> Thiesse stated he also is not sure who defines the view and what constitutes a view. Thiesse noted the <br /> majority of the view consists of trees and that he is not sure if it is the role of the Planning Commission to <br /> define the view. The neighbors are against the project and that is one indication that the variances might <br /> be excessive. Thiesse stated if the applicant does stay within the parameters of the building envelope,he <br /> can construct 9,000 square feet of house on two levels,which in his view will be detrimental to the people <br /> to the west. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission really has no control over the swimming pool and <br /> the noise that will be created. <br /> Walsh commented the role of the Planning Commission is to enforce the rules. The applicant purchased <br /> the property knowing there were homes next door and that the applicant has a nice size building envelope. <br /> Walsh stated in his view any water issues in the back can be mitigated. The neighbors are strongly <br /> opposed to the variances and that it is a house that will cause some sight issues. <br /> Levang stated the Planning Commission should protect the people first and that the trees should come <br /> second. The other large house in the neighborhood is located on the corner. The other homes in the <br /> neighborhood are reasonably sized. <br /> Page <br /> 18 <br />