My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
07-20-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:23:12 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:14:20 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.
/
389
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
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JUNE 15. 1998 <br />(//2 - #2368 Kirk Otteson - Continued) <br />Mr. and Mrs. Otteson were present. <br />Van Zomeren stated this application was considered at the May IS. I99S meeting and was tabled <br />due to concerns about the proposed addition to the e.xisting stmeture and its impact on the ravine. <br />The building official has had an opportunity to visit the site and indicated that he docs not think the <br />proposed addition will have a negativ e impact on the ravine because of the existing v egetation <br />and that there would be little if any impact on the "top of the blufl” line <br />Van Zomeren stated the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to construct an addition and a <br />deck on the lake side of the e.xisting residence. A bluff setback is required because the proposed <br />addition is located between the top of the blutT and the 30 foot bluff setback, with an average lakeshorc <br />setback also being required. Van Zomeren noted the existing hardcover is .^.100 square feet with the <br />proposed hardcover being 3,310. The applicant has proposed to exchange non-structural hardcover in <br />the driveway and sidewalk to add the decks and addition. Staff did not recommend remov al of the <br />sidewalk and parking area because of safety concerns. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Hawn noted this structure was built before the bluff ordinance was in effect, but stated she is not <br />in favor of setting a precedent by allowing further encroachment into the bluff line. Hawn stated in tlic <br />past she has voted in favor of replacing or enclosing existing decks <br />Otteson stated he was under the impression the Planning Commission w.as not opposed to the addition. <br />Stoddard remarked the Planning Commission attempts to look at c.ach application on a case by <br />case basis, noting that in order to make a recommendation, the Planning Commission needs to know <br />whether this application falls within the bluff ordinance. Stoddard stated he did not hav e a <br />problem with the application, noting the building inspector did not feel it would h.'ivc a negative <br />impact on the ravine. <br />Van Zomeren indicated it was her opinion that it docs fall within the bluff ordinance due to the <br />rise of the land. <br />McMillan noted the bluff would make the lot almost unbilildable if the residence was new construction. <br />Chair Smith recommended that the possibility of erosion be taken into account. Chair Smith <br />pointed out that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to assess the implications of the <br />ordinance as it relates to each particular property before a decision can be reached <br />Roger Wiekman stated they were under the impression from the prev ions Planning Commission <br />meeting that thev needed to show the drainage impact on this propertv rather than the impact to <br />the bluff. <br />Chair Smith inquired whether the new addition could somehow be constructed without encroaching <br />upon the bluff. Smith also stated a need to reduce hardcover without removal of the <br />sidewalk.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.