Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 18, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 16 of 33  <br />  <br />be a sewer connection charge that would be due but that there is no question that sewer is available on this <br />property. <br /> <br />McGrann stated if you just look at the applicants’ average lakeshore setback and you assume Lot 6 is a <br />separate lot versus 1135 is not on the lakeshore. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in the situation where this is a vacant lot, they would look at meeting the average setback <br />based on the house that is there on the other side. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked if the City bases its average lakeshore setback on what is there and not based on what is <br />not there. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated what is before the Planning Commission is the adjacent lot, which is being considered <br />as a single lot, and that there is a house there. Landgraver stated in that situation the City has consistently <br />measured the average lakeshore setback line based on the adjacent lakeshore houses. Landgraver stated <br />based on that, the proposed house would require a variance. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the other dimension to consider is height of the proposed structure. Since the existing <br />house is way up high, one argument is that because the proposed house is lower, it would not obstruct as <br />much view. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has not contemplated that dimension before in <br />their discussions of average lakeshore setback. Landgraver stated even in looking at this as flat land, the <br />Planning Commission would not grant this. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he tends to be in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that it is hard to make a <br />decision given the circumstances. McGrann stated given that the two lots are combined, he finds it hard <br />to take that out of the equation in terms of the average lakeshore setback line and go straight across a <br />piece of property that is currently legally tied to another lot. McGrann stated he understands the height <br />argument but that he has a hard time approving an average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated he also is in agreement. Schwingler stated in dealing with what exists today, the <br />proposed house is way outside the average lakeshore setback. <br /> <br />Leskinen indicated she would also agree with that. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not real comfortable about voting on a bunch of <br />hypotheticals. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated simply looking at just the zoning question alone and not the legal question, what exists <br />today is that the adjacent lot is a full lot regardless of how it is combined. Leskinen indicated she is in <br />agreement with the prior comments. <br /> <br />Lemke stated by taking away the restriction on the height, it still impedes the neighbor’s view. Lemke <br />stated they would be able to look over the house but they would still be able to still the house. <br /> <br />Schwingler noted there are also findings of fact that exist from the four prior times it was denied and that <br />nothing has changed with this request. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/15/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 16 of 33]