My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-11-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
05-11-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2020 3:30:40 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 3:24:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 27, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />20. LA20-000025, JOHN KRAEMER, 855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S, VARIANCE: <br /> AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary of packet information. She noted Staff recommends approval. <br /> <br />Crosby commented, while looking at the screen display, that the chimney is shorter. <br /> <br />Curtis agreed with Crosby. <br /> <br />After Curtis displayed a side view of the rendering, oriented everyone, and discussed grade, Johnson <br />asked whether the only additional piece is the little right-hand upper corner which is downward. <br /> <br />Curtis, referencing another drawing, pointed out the location of the porch. She also displayed a picture of <br />the current cabin. <br /> <br />Walsh said they are making the volume much bigger because they are excavating underneath the cabin to <br />flatten it out from the very front, which is much lower than the back. <br /> <br />Curtis stated Walsh was correct. She indicated the roof space they would lose is about 4 feet. She said the <br />applicant could probably give the Council the dimensions of the grade drop and roof loss. <br /> <br />Walsh said he would be curious to see what the volume difference is, because it is a slippery slope if <br />someone starts cutting into the berm wall to flatten it out to create volume in a different area. The Council <br />does not want to create the opportunity where that becomes the norm. It is a volume issue to him, and as <br />long as it is in the same box/floor plan and the volume is no different, it is 6 of 1, half a dozen of the <br />other. <br /> <br />Curtis said in her opinion it is helpful that the average lakeshore setback is a view protection. By lowering <br />it, if there was an impact from a neighboring property, that would lower that impact. Using the aerial <br />photo, she pointed out the tree coverage between the cabin and other property. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if the cabin was located in the 0-75. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the cabin is not located in the 0-75 and indicated the 0-75 area on the map. <br /> <br />Walsh said he thought it was in the 0-75 which is why he was having more of an issue with the volume. <br />Given where the cabin is located, it does not bother him. <br /> <br />Crosby asked what the volume beneath the grade was. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she is not sure and could not do the measurement while online. She said the architect could <br />address the technical comments. <br /> <br />Walsh stated that since it is not in the 0-75, it is not a volume issue. It is an average lakeshore setback and <br />the owner is bringing it lower. Even if it were expanded, it would probably not be that big of an issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.