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
a <br /> MINUTES OF THE • <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated the applicants have rounded off the sightlines on the lower level and that this is an <br /> extension of that design, which goes towards the practical difficulty. Thiesse stated the 75-foot setback <br /> criteria also consists of what it looks like fi-om the lake. <br /> Leskinen stated she agrees it would look better if the rounded design extends upward rather than having it <br /> rounded at the bottom and square at the top. <br /> Thiesse stated it is being driven from the practical difficulty down below. <br /> Lemke stated in his view it is a design element. <br /> Leskinen stated it would be an improvement visually from the lake and would be stepped back sli�htly. <br /> Thiesse noted that portion actually is being stepped forward and not back. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the applicants have made a good faith effort on the ground level to <br /> conform, and for consistency and perception from the lake, the second floor is being moved forward and <br /> follows the shape of the first floar. Landgraver noted typically the Planning Commission does not <br /> approve more encroachments in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Thiesse stated the portion that is recommended for denial is the existing wall that is being pushed forward <br /> on top of existing structure. Thiesse noted the applicants are not increasing the structural footprint and <br /> are decreasing the structural coverage. <br /> VonFeldt stated if you took off the angled pieces, it would be all the way across. VonFeldt stated they are <br /> proposing the roofline of the first floor be pushed further back than what it currently is. <br /> Thiesse asked if the green portion is the deck. <br /> VonFeldt indicated it is. VonFeldt noted they cannot continue with this design if the second floor bump <br /> out is denied and that they would have to come back with a plan for a squared front. VonFeldt stated he <br /> is not sure how that process would work and whether his application would need to be tabled tonight. <br /> Page 56 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.