My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-16-2022 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2022
>
05-16-2022 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2022 2:14:23 PM
Creation date
5/17/2022 8:59:33 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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 <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,April 18,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Oakden replied Staff would support a variance request if it was in the 42 inch range of that 956 elevation. <br /> Libby asked Staff if the Applicant would still need a variance for the 956? <br /> Oakden replied that is correct and today if they wanted a building permit at a strict reading of the Code, <br /> they have 42 inches above existing grade. <br /> Libby asked if in the original recommendation for denial Staff had taken into consideration the severity of <br /> the slope towards the lake and drainage from roof, gutters,and pool. <br /> Oakden replied this specific plan was sent to the City Engineer to review for drainage and waterways. The <br /> engineer said that this pattern as proposed would manage drainage for the house and improvements just <br /> fine. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. <br /> Kirchner thinks Staff has gone out of their way to present something that is reasonable. He does not see <br /> practical difficulty and would support denial at this time. <br /> McCutcheon thinks it is all about the definition of the previous grade and he can see where there is some <br /> contention.He tends to believe Staffs expertise and it looks like they were pretty accurate with their <br /> measurement. <br /> Erickson has some experience in demolishing houses and one thing the City has made clear is that any <br /> rights one may have had due to the structure being there will disappear when the structure disappears.For <br /> example a non-conforming setback, lot size,etc.He noted when there was a house there,and it was a <br /> certain height,those things are not issues that apply to this.Erickson thinks Staff have done a good job <br /> looking at the issues and supports denial. <br /> Kraemer is not hearing anything that meets practical difficulty. <br /> Libby agreed. <br /> Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA22-000014,940 North Arm Drive,Variances.VOTE: <br /> Ayes: 6,Nays 0. <br /> 2. LA22-000012 Stonewood LLC,2987+3005 Casco Point Rd and PID 20-117-23-34-0027, <br /> Sketch Plan(Staff: Melanie Curtis) <br /> Michael Gorman,property owner, and Sven Gustafson, Stonewood LLC,were present. <br /> City Planner Curtis gave a summary of the item noting the Hartzell Addition was platted in 1985. Each of <br /> the lots are conforming with respect to area and width.Lot 1 containing the tennis court was platted as a <br /> non-lakeshore lot;Lots 2 and 3 were platted as lakeshore lots. The Applicant is proposing to re-plat all <br /> three lots and is requesting informal feedback on their sketch plan proposal to move the lot lines in order <br /> to create one more lakeshore lot. In order to create a third lakeshore lot, one of the three lots will become <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.