My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
05-13-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 10:12:05 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 10:07:05 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.
/
292
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 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 <br />(^^5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) <br />Mabusth asked the Commissioners their opinion of the 3-1/2' setback to the side lot line <br />and what their recommendation w ould be of the encroachment into the County ris»ht-of- <br />waj Lind(]uist noted the proposal meets the structural coverage allowed and suggested <br />the home be rearranged on the lot to meet the setback <br />The applicant said the building inspector said the foundation could be used, if more <br />support posts and beams were added, to extend the home 6’ and add a second story. <br />Mabusth noted that she will review this matter with the building staff <br />The former owner noted that the original part of the house had a fieldstone foundation <br />that was 2-j thick and adequate to support the addition with a new foundation wall on the <br />east only Mabusth clarified with the applicant that the proposal would only require a new <br />foundation wall on the east to support the structure Hawn noted that the project would <br />then not be new construction <br />Smith asked the applicant if th 'e were any reductions that could be made to the home. <br />Stephens said he used the 15*50 allowable for structural coverage in designing the house. <br />Smith suggested reducing the structure to eliminate the need for any variances. <br />Lindquist noted it the home was rearranged, it could have significant impact on the views <br />for the neighbor to the north, and felt there would be the need for a variance for setback. <br />Peterson commented that the dramatic variances are for side and rear setbacks <br />Hawn commented on the need to be consistent when homes are being torn down and <br />replaced She noted the value in taking the impact to the neighbor's view into <br />consideration <br />Mabusth clarified that the 3-1/2' setback variance is for a side setback to the principal <br />structure The attached garage will be located 27' from lot line <br />Lindquist asked if the existing foundation would be used with the exception of the east <br />wall. The applicant said the existing footings and foundation with the exception of the <br />east wall would be used <br />Peterson said the proposal would be acceptable to him if the applicant would remain <br />within the existing foundation. <br />Berg noted the need to clarify the inspector's comments <br />There were no public comments
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.