My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-08-2018 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2018
>
01-08-2018 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 10:14:12 AM
Creation date
5/24/2019 10:11:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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 20, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Landgraver asked for clarification on the timeline. <br />Curtis indicated the screen porch was built sometime after the applicants purchased the property in <br />August of 2016. Some other construction was going on at the property, which consisted of a fence. <br />Following installation of the fence, a stop work order was issued on the screen porch. Curtis indicated <br />she is not sure what type of communication went on between the applicant and the inspector. Staff met <br />this fall with the homeowner and walked through the process and the applicant subsequently applied for a <br />variance. <br />Lemke asked whether the design of the screen porch meets all of the City's requirements. <br />Curtis stated that is unknown at this time and that the comments from the inspector indicate that footing <br />inspections would need to be conducted as well as a review of the structural components of the porch. <br />Curtis stated that process would start with the applicant submitting building plans. <br />Steve Schottler, Applicant, stated they are new citizens to the Orono. Schottler noted he currently is a <br />stay-at-home dad but that he previously worked for a real estate company and appeared before various <br />planning commissions. Schottler stated he understands how important the process is and that he is here to <br />ask for an after -the -fact variance for the porch. <br />Schottler stated in their view this is a unique property because there is a long channel that connects into a <br />cove located on one side of the property, which creates a practical difficulty as it relates to the lakeside <br />setbacks. Schottler stated he was able to meet with four of his neighbors. The neighbor to the right has a <br />deck that is 65 feet from the cove, another neighbor on the right has a deck that is 95 feet from the main <br />lake, and then the other two neighbors have decks that are 85 and 75 feet to the lake. Schottler noted his <br />house to the main portion of the lake is 144 feet. <br />Schottler stated part of the problem lies with the fact that the City's measurements are based on the high <br />water level. Schottler stated when he measured it from the water's edge, it was over 75 feet. The area <br />where the measurement was taken is the former boathouse area of the previous owner. Schottler stated it <br />is actually a manmade inlet just for the boathouse, and that if you measure it out to where the rest of the <br />cove is, it is approximately 102 feet. The house sits back 144 feet back from the main lake and a little <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.