Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Stickney stated they will govern that with the architecture review committee to make sure the houses are <br /> placed correctly and that the correct number of trees are cut in the Big Woods. Stickney noted the homes <br /> are proposed to be approximately 500 feet away from each other and that it really should not matter. <br /> Stickney noted when he was the developer for Brackett's Point,this same problem came up because they <br /> could not adhere to the ordinance and a blanket variance was recommended. Stickney stated with proper <br /> oversight and control by the homeowners, it should not be a problem. Stickney noted Lot 4 has to stay <br /> away from the septic sites and the owners desire a big yard. Stickney stated once those homes are built <br /> and the average lakeshore setback is established, it would be very difficult to deviate from that. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it is the second generation house that is the concern. <br /> Stickney stated given the price range of the homes, it is very unlikely that anyone will be tearing any of <br /> them down in the foreseeable future. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is a concern with having the neighbors make the determination of who can build <br /> closer to the lake and who cannot. <br /> Gaffron stated the City still has various other setbacks that would need to be met, in addition to the <br /> topography, and that the situation with the average lakeshore setback would be pretty much self- <br /> controlling. Gaffron stated based on a lot by lot analysis, he does not feel there are significant issues. <br /> Lemke asked what would happen if someone wanted to add on to the house, install an 8-foot fence,or <br /> construct an accessory structure lakeward of the house sites. <br /> Gaffron indicated someone could put in a pool,which would not obstruct anyone's view, but that they <br /> would likely not be allowed to place a building there that obstructs views. A property owner also would <br /> not be able to have a fence that is higher than 42 inches lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line <br /> and no fence would be allowed within 75 feet of the lake. <br /> Lemke asked if the blanket variance would only pertain to the principal structure. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> Stickney stated there is really no great need for any of the homes to move back or forward and that some <br /> of the lots are very limited. Stickney stated the location of the homes will be controlled through the <br /> homeowners, staff,the taxpayers, and him. <br /> Landgraver noted the City Council approved the final plat and that this is a technical amendment to take <br /> into account the timing issues. Landgraver stated his only reservation is that the blanket variance has a <br /> termination date, and following completion of construction,the normal rules and regulations would apply. <br /> Gaffron stated the only reservation is that Lots 1 and 2 have been purchased by the adjacent neighbor to <br /> the east and that it is likely they will not be built on for a number of years. <br /> Leskinen asked if it possible to add language in the blanket variance that this variance applies to the <br /> original homes in this plat so that subsequent redevelopment would not have the ability to take advantage <br /> of the blanket variance. <br /> Page 5 of 26 <br />