Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver noted the house is being pulled back but the pool will be closer to the lake. <br /> Thiesse stated the pool would still be outside the 75-foot setback. Thiesse stated as far as Mr.Lopez's <br /> property,to his understanding his views are not protected since his property is not lakeshore. Thiesse <br /> stated the people who own lakeshore properties have the ability to build on their lots. Thiesse stated <br /> while it would be nice that they take into consideration Mr. Lopez's views,they are not obligated to. <br /> Lopez asked if the 6-foot privacy fence is allowed on the side lot line. <br /> Thiesse stated it would be allowed if it meets the City's standards. <br /> Lopez asked if he is saying that he has no say in whether they get a variance. Lopez stated he does not <br /> mind if they construct a house on the property but that the height of the roof will exceed what is currently <br /> there. Lopez stated presently the yard slopes down toward the road and they will backfill with dirt and <br /> raise the elevation of the proposed house. As a result, it will be a pretty tall house. <br /> Thiesse stated Mr. Lopez does have the ability to come forward at the Planning Commission and state his <br /> concerns. Thiesse noted the maximum height of the house is limited to 30 feet and that the applicants <br /> could propose a rambler that is 17-foot tall or put in a house that is 30 feet tall. <br /> Lopez asked if he basically has no say on the variances. <br /> Thiesse stated if the applicants can show a practical difficulty and it seems to reasonably meet the intent <br /> of the law,the variances would likely be granted. <br /> Lopez commented that he does not feel a$2 million house is a reason to allow a summer pool house. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated he sees the privacy fence as a practical difficulty given the county road and the headlights <br /> shining at this house as cars come around the corner. <br /> Curtis noted the applicants are permitted a fence as long as the fence is located within their property. <br /> Curtis stated as it is shown,the fence does cross into the County's property to the east. <br /> Landgraver asked what the elevation of the pool and terrace is. <br /> Curtis indicated it is approximately six feet higher than existing grade due to the tiered walls. Curtis <br /> noted the City Engineer did review the plans and that the applicants are essentially building an elevated <br /> structure. Curtis stated the pool is a structure within the average lakeshore setback,and the height of the <br /> patio,even without a pool,would require the requested variance. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission listens to all the comments and apply them when appropriate, <br /> but when you look at the applicant's request and the code,they are reasonable requests and use of the <br /> property. Schoenzeit stated the City's Code does not provide non-lakeshore neighbors protected <br /> sightlines of the lake. <br /> Page 30 of 43 <br />