My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
03-28-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 4:07:34 PM
Creation date
1/11/2023 3:39:51 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
362
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 15,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />9. #04-3066 WILLIAM AND ANITA ROUSE, 4051 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES, <br />8:13 p.m.-8:46 p.m. <br />William Rouse, Applicant, was present. <br />Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a side setback variance in order to reorient the roof of the house <br />and the garage within the 10 ’ side setback and are also requesting a lake setback variance in order to add a <br />second story over a portion of the existing home within 75’ of the ordinary high water level. Curtis noted <br />although the applicants are not requesting hardcover variances, they are proposing some reductions in <br />hardcover as part of this application. <br />Staff recommends approval of the side setback and the lake setback variances as requested in conjunction <br />with the removal of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ and 75’-250 ’ setback zones as the Planning Commission <br />deems appropriate. Staff finds there is a hardship given the location of the existing home and garage with <br />respect to the 10 ’ side and 75’ lake setbacks. Curtis noted the existing home at one time did meet the 75’ <br />lake setback requirement prior to some erosion that has occurred on the property. <br />Rouse had nothing to add to Staffs report <br />Rahn called for public comments. <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Leslie inquired what the value of the improvements is relative to the value of the house. Iu;slic <br />questioned whether this should be considered a rebuild or new construction. <br />/ <br />Curtis indicated she docs not know the value of the improvements and that Staff is viewing it as a <br />remodel and addition. <br />Rouse stated they arc adding up above the cast side of the house and basically taking a one-story rambler <br />and making it a story and a half cape cod. Rouse indicated two bedrooms would be constructed above the <br />cast side, with the rooflinc being changed to meet the upper story. <br />Fritzler inquired whether there is presently a room upstairs. <br />Rouse indicated there is not. <br />Frit/.Icr inquired whether the first floor ceilings arc being raised as part of this project. <br />Rouse indicated a portion of the ceiling on the first floor is being raised to ten feet and part of it is <br />remaining at eight foot <br />Rahn inquired where the eight-foot walls are located. <br />PAGE 22 <br />J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.