My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
07-28-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:26:23 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 1:56:02 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.
/
511
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, July 21,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Chair Smith asked the applicant whether he wished the Commission to table or vote on the <br />application. <br />Germundsen asked whether the impact on his sightlines caused by the neighbors justified <br />his request. <br />Berg stated that the sightlines had nothing to do with his structural coverage c.xcess. <br />Germundsen could sec no where to pull additional hardcover from the property and asked <br />the Commission to vote on the application. <br />Fritzler moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application 1103-2895, Gary <br />Germundsen, 4101 Highwood Road, due to lack of viable hardship and the <br />stipulation of Resolution #4645 which set limits to the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays <br />0. <br />(#10) #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, 1225 LAKE VIEW AVENUE, <br />VARIANCE, 7:40 - 7:44 P.M. <br />Wayne and Arne Johnson, the applicants, were present. <br />Foth explained that the applicants request a side yard variance in order to encroach 15’ into <br />the side yard setback. The applicants arc requesting a variance to place their proposed <br />porch at 1 S’ from the side lot line where a 30' setback is required. <br />Based on the hardship of the Small lot size (0.47 acre) in a 2-acre zoning district, and <br />location of the existing house and w'ell, Foth indicated that the staff would recommend <br />approval of the side yard variance for 15’ encroachment into the 30’ setback. <br />Foth stated that the application is to rebuild a porch addition which will be slightly larger <br />than the existing porch and will have an attached deck. The new porch is proposed to be <br />15’ from the side lot line at its closest point for a total increase in square footage of the <br />deck and porch to be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The lot size in this situation <br />is 0.47 acre, typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setback of 15’ <br />would be conforming if this area was zoned for '/j acre lots. <br />Fritzler believed the location of the w ell to be adequate hardship. <br />Gaffron pointed out that the neighbors detached garage is also an issue. <br />There were no public comments. <br />•• <br />PAGE 14 of 37 <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.