Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17, 2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. would be used in that analysis. Anything over 50 percent of that would need to meet the City's definition of a story. Curtis noted the applicant is not looking for a variance from that at this time. Land graver asked if the removal of the roof on the porch would setback. Curtis stated it would not. the fact that it still extends into the Landgraver asked if there are neighboring propertiesJhatwould l>eitµ'pact~; Curtis stated there is a cabin on each of the adjoining setback line. Curtis stated it is her belief this cabin will porch, deck, carousel or other structure will not be blocking but it is a setback requirement that needs to be addressed. ·\3/ii~h deteJin~iihej~~~e,lakeshore ,:Yvisible, and that.tbe:i6clusion of the aii~vi~w from the neighboring properties Curtis displayed an aerial property of the subject pr()gertylllld two adjoih~~foj?erties. Curtis noted there is a significant amount of vegetation be~,~ntpejit9~tl:}~s. Curtis state<fthe elevation of the grade also drops down and that the south side oftb~ijplicant'shomei~!ocated on the high point of the property and then it drops down on either side! · Lemke asked if the house could be moved hick ten feef Curtis stated Staff is suggesting thatb~0that~he buil~(yvt}uld nJ~ to speak to the topography of the land and whether that would impact theifp(ans. . . . . ,.:s;'.~ <, John Reimann, 21957 Minneto~i;'B~~l~yard, Greenwood, stated they are attempting to minimize the impact on the lap.dand any excavattonth9-twould be required. Leskinen askedc;ifth~reia: a clearing wherl{be 11,ew home could be pushed back into. :; .. ·.; ·/\i. ·.~'_···'::, •,•. ,: ". .'· ..... Reimallil,~ted thtioti~~erywoqded and that~ey ~re placing the home in the clearing that currently exiS:1;£/,Reimann indicatedt~ereisanumber orbeautiful maple trees located on the property. fam~~d;er asked if he would ~~~enable to excavating a little bit more to locate the house further back which would eliminate the need fof,i.:variance. ;; >·:'.".'. .·:,"/~;·/ . ;-. .. .,,,, Reimannstatedtney :»1ould be, butthat he does not really understand what is meant by an average setback. Reimallfinoted thecut:tettthouse has existed in that location since approximately 1957 and that they would liketobe;al)Jet~)cappreciate the lake without the cabin being in the way. Reimann indicated given the elevation oftl:re.J<>,1:, a person cannot see the water until they are right up to the shore. Reimann stated they would like tcltp,lpimize any disruption to the land as much as possible but that they would be willing to do whatever needs to be done. Leskinen stated she appreciates the applicant not wanting to further disrupt the land and the trees. Le skin en stated with the roof of the deck being removed, it would be less impactful, but that she is not sure if the desire for minimal disruption of the land is enough of a practical difficulty for an average lakeshore variance. Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to be okay with it under these circumstances but that she is open to other thoughts on the matter. Page 17 of 26