My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/18/2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
11/18/2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2018 3:44:37 PM
Creation date
12/20/2018 3:44:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen commented there are a number of setbacks on this property which makes it difficult to construct <br /> a totally conforming house. <br /> Curtis stated there is significant side yard encroachment. <br /> Brunello indicated he has spoken with the neighbor to the south and that they are not opposed to the <br /> project. Brunello stated the neighbors are aware of what is being proposed. <br /> Thiesse commented that usually he would require the house be moved over but that there is quite a bit of <br /> distance between this house and the neighbor's home. <br /> Leskinen asked whether there are limits or anything the Planning Commission would need to build into <br /> an approval to mitigate any potential risks of approving a building envelope versus a building footprint. <br /> Curtis stated some of the issues for consideration address that as do some of Staff's recommendations. If <br /> the Planning Commission feels it is risky to approve a building envelope as opposed to an actual building <br /> footprint, Curtis noted the additional structural footprint limit or the structural coverage limit would be a <br /> tool that could used and would be a mitigating factor. In addition,the Planning Commission could limit <br /> the massing on the property and that they do have the ability to mitigate the impacts of the variances by <br /> requiring things such as screening. <br /> Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with what Staff has recommended in terms of those factors,but <br /> that she was not sure whether there was anything else the Planning Commission should consider. <br /> Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could approve the footprint of the house and then if the <br /> applicant varies it,he would be required to come back. <br /> Curtis stated that is not what the applicant is requesting but the Planning Commission could do that. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the applicant is planning on moving the location of the house around. Thiesse <br /> stated the concern is that if the Planning Commission is going to approve a building pad,that would give <br /> quite a bit of latitude on the variance. <br /> Brunello stated the orange area is what he is asking for. Brunello noted the house will not be very big and <br /> that the orange area is basically what he is asking for. <br /> Thiesse asked if he intends to meet the 10-foot setback for the second story on the south side. <br /> Brunello indicated he would. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the rear encroachment into the wetland. <br /> Thiesse stated he is not comfortable with it,but if you look at the amount of wetland and buffer in that <br /> area,allowing a 5-foot encroachment would be insignificant. Thiesse noted he is relocating the driveway, <br /> which will help with runoff and is an improvement. <br /> Brunello noted there is currently a lot of mass that is in the wetland which will be removed. Brunello <br /> stated it is necessary for the southwest corner of the house to encroach to keep everything located to the <br /> south side of the lot. <br /> Page 27 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.