My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
10-21-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:08:56 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:08:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 <br />• <br />( #6 - #2180 Frank and Peggy Pichelman - Continued) <br />Mabusth informed the applicants that the next review would be November 18. She added <br />that a side stall garage would fit in better with the neighborhood. <br />Schroeder asked if the addition in front of the average lakeshore setback could result in a <br />smaller garage to lessen the hardcover. Mabusth concurred that there would be a possible <br />reduction in the structural coverage. <br />Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2180 for further <br />deliberations of plans for a garage to fit in with the neighborhood and reduce hardcover. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( #7) #2181 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - RENEWAL <br />VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:51 -8:53 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present, along with Architect, Gary Frazee. <br />Schroeder excused himself from review of this application. Hawn chaired the review. <br />• Mabusth reported that the renewal variance was approved in November, 1995, and would <br />P p <br />expire November 27, 1996. The applicant did not feel there was time to begin the work <br />prior to that date and has asked for an extension. The approval was for the razing of an <br />existing residence and construction of a new residence. The property does not meet the <br />1/2 acre zoning standards and proposes a 9 -1/2' side setback at both north and south side <br />lot lines. The structure is located in front of the average lakeshore setback, which is <br />impacted by the existing home on property to immediate north that is located 200' from <br />shoreline. There are no changes proposed in current application. <br />• <br />The applicant had no additional comments. <br />There were no public comments. <br />When inquiring about the average lakeshore setback, Stoddard was informed by Gary <br />Frazee that there was a problem with calculations when attempting to remodel the existing <br />home. It was determined that the best option was to rebuild. The current home and <br />neighbors home were noted to now touch the side lot line. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.