Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> , Monday,Apri115,2013 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if it is possible to prevent any future variances for other lots if the average lakeshore <br /> setback variance is granted. <br /> Curtis stated City Code and the resolution would have language in there concerning any changes or <br /> expansion to the plans. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there are any characteristics of the lot that would prevent it from being placed at the <br /> average lakeshore setback. <br /> Curtis stated the further you pull the new home back,the further you are behind the home to the south, <br /> which would affect this home's view. If the applicant's home is pulled further to meet or better the <br /> average lakeshore setback, it will start to impact the views of the new home. <br /> Landgraver asked if they are speaking of 40 square feet that would encroach into the 75-foot setback. <br /> Curtis illustrated the area of the home that would encroach. Curtis noted they are improving the <br /> hardcover in the 75-foot setback. � <br /> Lemke asked if the home on the adjacent house were to be razed,whether they could construct any closer <br /> to the lake. <br /> Curtis indicated they would need to meet both the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback as <br /> determined by the new home being proposed. Given the nature of the setback requirement, it does move <br /> people back from the lake on either side if they should rebuild in the future. <br /> Peter Eskuche,Applicant, stated the only issue he wanted to touch on was to point out that the home to <br /> the left is located next to Nurenberg Park and is basically offsetting the entire building site for this lot and <br /> make it conforming. Their home is located approximately halfway back on the lot,which allows them to <br /> have panoramic views of Nurenberg Park. That forces this house quite a bit back and puts a burden on <br /> this lot. As Staff pointed out,the white roof is so far back that you cannot get a sense of Maxwell Bay. <br /> Krogness asked how far back the house with the wing on it is. Krogness stated it appears the new house <br /> would be basically at the same depth as the wing and it would not impact the views that the new house <br /> would have. Krogness noted the new house would not have the same view it would have if it stayed <br /> where it was. The house next door is not going to stay forever since it is an older house. Krogness asked <br /> why they are worried about the house on the other side and cutting off their view. Krogness stated in her <br /> view this is a lot of house for this lot and it is not in compliance. I{rogness asked how many square feet <br /> that section of the house is. <br /> Curtis indicated she is not sure how many square feet it is. <br /> Eskuche stated part of the problem is that the house is there and their view would be significantly reduced <br /> if they conform to the average lakeshore setback because they would not be able to see most of the lake. <br /> The house is located behind the wing and behind part of the adjacent house. They are moving the new <br /> house 39 feet behind the existing house. <br /> Curtis stated in her belief the new home would not negatively the views from the house to the south but <br /> rather would improve the views. It could potentially impact the side views from the house to the north. <br /> Page 6 of 26 <br />