My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-12-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
06-12-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:19:56 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:12:14 AM
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.
/
337
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
li*' <br />i I <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, May 15, 2000 <br />Gehnng stated they are proposing to build 42 feet from the lake, which is the average of the two <br />adjoining properties. Gehring stated the property to the south has a ten foot deck plus three foot <br />stairs at the rear of the residence, which reduces the setback to the lake. <br />Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia Street, stated the comer of the house as it exists now is located 1.6 feet <br />from the property line, noting he would be very much In favor of squaring up the house and widening <br />the access to the lake. Palm commented his property was constructed 39 feet from the lake, <br />with a ten foot deck. Palm stated by allowing the Applicant to construct at 42 feet from the lake. <br />It would bring the residence into alignment with the other adjoining properties and improve the <br />drainage in the area. Palm indicated he is in support of this project. <br />Neil Trainor. 1675 Concordia Street, indicated he recently purchased this property from his parents <br />who lived in the residence for quite some time. Trainor stated a majority of the problem with the <br />setback has resulted from the lakeshore eroding over the years, noting that approximately ten feet <br />of lakeshore has eroded away over the years. Trainor stated the location for the proposed residence <br />is good due to the alignment with the other adjoining properties. <br />Smith inquired why the Planning Commission did not require Palm to meet the 50 foot setback at <br />the time he constructed his residence In 1995, <br />Palm stated no one was in favor of a two story building, which would block the neighbors ’ view at <br />the 75 foot setback, so the Planning Commission elected to allow the house to be built at 39 feet <br />to make it more in alignment with the other homes in the area. <br />Stoddard commented he has concerns with the amount of hardcover proposed In the 0-75 foot <br />setback as well as the amount of hardcover In the 75-250 foot setback. Stoddard stated the <br />Applicant may need to look at reducing the amount of hardcover. <br />Gehring inquired whether he was being asked to relocate his garage to reduce hardcover. <br />Smith stated the Planning Commission on new construction generally requires the Applicants to <br />comply with the structural and hardcover requirements. Smith stated the Applicant should attempt <br />to lower the hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback to 25 percent, which is what is typically allowed <br />Page 17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.