My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:53:40 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.
/
296
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
r Wf-- <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 <br />(#14. #2265 Robert Lund for Graydon and Michelle Newman - Continued) <br />Smith asked why the residence would be located in front of the average lakeshore setback. She <br />was informed by Lund that there are a large number of trees on the property and the residence <br />will be built to line up with viewing the lake tlirough the trees. <br />Schroeder asked how far forward the home would be. He was infonned that the orientation of <br />the home would change but would be between 83' and 85’ forward. It was noted that there is no <br />way to avoid encroaching into the average lakeshore setback. <br />Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2265. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br />(Berg was absent during the vote). <br />(#15) #2266 RONALD AND ROBIN HOHRMAN <br />190 CYGNET PLACE <br />VARIANCES <br />PUBLIC HEARING 9:31-9:34 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Van Zomeren reported that the request is for variances to the rear and side yard setbacks for <br />construction of a screen porch to the rear and a one stall addition to the garage to the east. The ^ <br />lots in the area do not meet lot area requirements and create long narrow building pads. The 30 <br />side yard requirement is proposed at 28 ’. The 50’ rear yard is proposed at 46'. Van Zomeren said <br />structural coverage is not an issue. There is a small front yard encroachment. Staff <br />recommended approval. <br />The applicant said the residence is located just barely into the setback and the proposal is the <br />only alternative for an addition. <br />There were no public comments. <br />McMillan asked if the neighboring properties were notified. Van Zomeren said they were. She <br />indicated she received one call and sent out information to that person. She received no <br />complaints. <br />Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2266. Smith asked if a new <br />driveway would be built for the garage addition. The applicant said it would be widened but a <br />pad is already located there. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.