My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 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.
/
373
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
S <br /> ' MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <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 /> McGrann stated he likes the shape of the house and that the view from the lake will look better. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicants have put a lot of time and effort into designing a more efficient space but <br /> that it is still a lot of house far the lot. <br /> Leskinen noted the structural coverage is decreasing. Leskinen stated the biggest question far the <br /> Planning Commission is Staff's recommendation for denial of the portion of the requested ]ake setback <br /> variance to allow further encroachment within the 75-foot setback. <br /> Schoenzeit questioned whether efficiency ar architectural aesthetics should trump code. <br /> Leskinen asked if the house is currently in the 0-75 foot setback. <br /> Curtis indicated the 75-foot setback goes right through the house. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the question is how the Planning Commission feels about how it looks from the lake <br /> and where the addition sits. <br /> Page 55 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.