My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-17-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
04-17-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:44:01 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:40:04 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.
/
236
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 <br />(#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) <br />Dtiring public comments, John Gering of 1687 Concordia reported being in agreement <br />wish the plans as proposed <br />Mabusth reviewed the variances and comparisons of the existing structure and proposed <br />plan. Tte proposed deck would be located at 40 ’ from lakeshore and currently exists at <br />28 ’ The principal structure now located at 39* will be relocated at 50’ The deck would <br />etKroach 10’ in front of the average lakeshore setback but the structure would meet this <br />setback The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 28% and is now proposed at 26% <br />Hardcover in the 75-250* exists at 33®« and is now proposed at 32 4% Hardcover in the <br />250-500’ exists at 40f i and is proposed at 34*5a Total hardcover exists at 32 79% and is <br />proposed at 30 95*!'o There is no structural coverage variance required proposed at <br />14 2^4 <br />Nolan noted that the house plan is absent of wripheral hardcover and sees no areas where <br />concessions can be made Nolan also noted the significant natural berm on the lakeside <br />which would result in runoff moving back away from the lake instead of forward Nolati <br />commented that the plan is consistent with the neighborhood <br />Row lette voiced her concern with the substandard setbacks of the area Rowlette opined <br />that this would be a good opportunity to look to the tuture of the area and require a 75' <br />setback Other improvements in the area in the future could then be changed to meet the <br />75’ setback Rowlette did note that she was otherwise in approval of the proposed plan <br />A public comment was heard from a new incoming neighbor of a sanitary sewer easement <br />which nins through this and other properties 100’ from the road. The applicant reported <br />that the sanitary sewer easement runs next to their garage apron <br />Mr. Palm responded with the options available He said the original proposed plan had <br />been approved at the 39’ setback, and he was not willing to change the new plan to the 75’ <br />setback Palm said this would result in their home being behind all of the homes and was <br />not aware of any immediate changes happening to the home to the immediate south. Palm <br />also responded to the negative when asked by Rowlette if he would move the plan back to <br />have the deck meet the 50' setback Smith commented that she would not approve any <br />plan if the deck would not be moved back to meet the 50* setback. <br />Palm noted the good drainage of the property with the sand base and lack of any pooling <br />of water Palm also commented on the benefits to the neighborhood if this plan was <br />approved. <br />Peterson commented that requesting a 75* setback was probably unrealistic but did note <br />that approval would set a precedent.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.