Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE � <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 15,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the code would say to move it back to the average lakeshore setback and that he would <br /> encourage the applicant to split the difference. <br /> Curtis pointed out it would put the applicant's house more directly next to the neighboring home,and <br /> with the proposed location,they are looking at more open space. If the house is pulled back further,there <br /> will be less of a separation. <br /> Lemke asked how much they would need to pull it back in order to meet that line. <br /> Curtis indicated 30 feet. <br /> Schoenzeit indicated he would be comfortable with 15 feet. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is <br /> not supposed to design the house and asked if the applicant would be comfortable with pushing it back 15 <br /> feet. <br /> Eskuche indicated he would not be. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view the applicant's proposal is reasonable. <br /> Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3600,Eskuche <br /> Associates on Behalf of Kathryn Kallas,3048 North Shore Drive,granting of an average lakeshore <br /> setback variance and conditional use permit,based on StafPs recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 2, <br /> Nays 3,Lemke,Schoenzeit and Krogness Opposed. MOTION FAILS. <br /> Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission make another motion that passes or table the application <br /> if the applicant wishes. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in an attempt to provide direction to the applicant,the fact that it is new construction <br /> and that there is nothing preventing it from being pushed back,he would be comfortable in allowing 15 <br /> feet. � <br /> Eskuche pointed out if this proposal passes and the house is pushed further back,the average of those two <br /> houses would be within the conforming setback at 75 feet. The issue for his client is the location of the <br /> neighbor's house and that they are proposing it slightly behind the neighbor's house. The location of the <br /> residence to the north unduly burdens them and makes this situation unique. Eskuche indicated he does <br /> not understand why their proposal is not reasonable. <br /> Schoenzeit noted there are two setbacks and that nobody can build in the 0-75 foot zone unless their <br /> property is all peninsula and that area is your only building envelope. The other reason for the setback is <br /> to protect close and far away houses,which is the secondary protection for lake views and massing. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the 75-foot setback is a minimum and not a maximum. With new construction,the <br /> applicant has the opportunity to be compliant, and that they are offering to split the difference between <br /> what is compliant and what is being proposed. <br /> Eskuche stated the nature of a variance is to deal with something that is unique. The ordinance was not <br /> created for a lot like this. Eskuche indicated the variance he was granted a month ago was similar. On <br /> that lot the house was centered on the property and their setback ran right through their house. In that <br /> situation they were granted a variance. � <br /> Page 9 of 26 <br />