My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 10:32:36 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 10:32:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> 1. Approval of side, rear, and lake setback variances allowing for the construction of the proposed <br /> second story improvements to the home located six feet from the side where ten feet is required; <br /> 58 feet from the OHWL where a 75-foot setback is required; ;and 26 feet from the rear where a <br /> 30-foot setback is required. <br /> Staff finds no practical difficulties exist which support the additional structural encroachments toward the <br /> lake and therefore recommends denial of the portion of the requested lake setback variance to allow <br /> further structural encroachments within the 75-foot setback. <br /> Curtis noted the green square is the existing second story deck on the house currently. If the applicant <br /> would like to reconstruct that deck,they would be able to do so. The hashed red area is the area that Staff <br /> is recommending be denied. In addition,the additions must conform to the standard height and massing <br /> requirements of the zoning code. <br /> Schoenzeit asked when the original house was constructed. <br /> Curtis indicated she is not aware and that the applicant would need to address that. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he is curious to know how this lot got to 2,300 square feet of structural coverage. <br /> Jeff VonFeldt, Applicant, stated he would like the Planning Commission review the denial element in <br /> more detaiL VonFeldt stated the existing house is a rectangle. The original plan was to construct the <br /> project just over the existing house,which would have required an average lakeshore setback variance on <br /> the front corner. VonFeldt indicated Staff was very clear that they should not do that so a better looking <br /> second plan was created which called for the rounding off of the front of the house to avoid that setback <br /> issue. <br /> In addition, Staff had a concern with the massing of the house on the lakeside, so the idea to reduce the <br /> house footprint on the lake side of the house was developed. In that plan,the corners cut back from the <br /> existing footprint. The current entry has a full roof all the way out to the front of the house. VonFeldt <br /> pointed out the existing portion of the entryway on the overhead and stated the plan was to have the <br /> second story match that and have a small bump out. VonFeldt stated by doing that, they are now able to <br /> do a hip roof to lower the elevation. VonFeldt stated Staff's recommendation of denial included the small <br /> deck off of the bedroom, which also provides a little roof over the entry. <br /> VonFeldt stated the practical difficulties are the small lot and the fact that the original house was built in <br /> 1920. VonFeldt indicated different portions of foundation were constructed as the house was expanded <br /> and that they are really just trying to make it one house that is functional. VonFeldt stated there is <br /> currently a 2.5 foot wide stairs up to the second floor. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:43 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:43 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it is a lot of house for a little lot. <br /> Thiesse stated it is, but that you need to do the project right and take architectural features into <br /> consideration. Thiesse stated a straight wall would not look as nice. <br /> Page 36 of 53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.