My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
10-28-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 1:30:43 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 1:26:08 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.
/
505
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 PLANTsING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />(#15 - #2057 James Nvstrom - Continued) <br />Peterson said if a ne a’ house was buui to the north, it also would be at the 75' line <br />Schroeder appreciated the tremendous improvement made in the proposal and saw no <br />problem with the deck as there were hardships with the house <br />Hawn asked why the 10’ side setbacks could not be met. Frazee said he worked with the <br />floor plan trying to minimize room sizes to meet the requirement He tound it would be <br />necessary to move rooms upstairs, and it w as the intent of the appl’cant to maintain an <br />understated and lower protile <br />Peterson read into the minutes a letter received from the DN'R recontmending denial of the <br />application due to structure within the 0-75' zone. The DN’R determined a reasonable <br />alternative would be to move *he structure back 10'. Peterson informed the applicant that <br />this is the only opportunity tkv City has to make properties meet current codes. <br />Schroeder noted lakeshore properties are a "Catch 22" proposition. Owners want to be <br />on the lake, yet it is bad for ihe lake. <br />Gaffron noted that the average setback, lot area, and lot width problems are inherent to <br />the property. The pertinent facts r mg to the existing and proposed houses were <br />reviewed. A major improvement \ setbacks was proposed for the garage <br />Schroeder moved '<ri«rove .Application #2057 as proposed due to the obvious hardships <br />of the property, th- „jDstandard lot, the considerable effort to meet regulations, in <br />particular the 0- • zone, to warrant the proposed exceptions There was no second to the <br />motion. <br />Peterson said the property had the amount of space needed to move the house back and <br />set the standards where they would meet City requirements. <br />The applicant said there was a privacy issue involved. The neighbor's screen porch being <br />on the property line looks directly into the home. <br />L'mdquist said, although the reasons were valid, many other applications also have valid <br />reasons. He noted it was becoming more difficult to allow any encroachment into the 75' <br />lakeshore area. Schroeder agreed. <br />Gaffron said the City cannot predia what will happen with other homes in the area. <br />Decisions cannot be made based on possible predictions. The applicant said the home to <br />the south was in good condition. <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.