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
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> VonFeldt noted there was an application earlier tonight that requested a lakeshore setback variance that <br /> was granted and that he does not feel like he is asking for too much. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out the house is growing towards the lake. <br /> Thiesse stated technically he is not since he is cutting the corners back. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the upstairs is growing. Schoenzeit stated simply because someone has a first floor that <br /> encroaches into the average lakeshore setback does not guarantee the second level encroachment. <br /> Schoenzeit commented he is surprised the neighbors have not expressed any concern about that <br /> encroaching into their view. <br /> VonFeldt requested the aerial photograph be displayed. VonFeldt stated the home to the left is what they <br /> are attempting to avoid. The second story of that home is simply a wall and there would be no visual <br /> interruption. The home on the right is a single-story home on a 100-foot lot. VonFeldt stated this project <br /> would impact tl�eir view of the other neighbor's wall. <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff is recommending that the second floar addition stop at the setback line. <br /> Curtis stated it should stop where it exists now and allow the expansion within the 75-foot into the green <br /> area on the sketch. Curtis pointed out the new structure in the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated Staff is trying <br /> to discourage additional structure toward the lake. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the flip side to the argument is that it may become more acceptable but that it is not <br /> really as aesthetically pleasing or an efficient use of the space. <br /> McGrann asked if the existing deck outlined in green would be removed. <br /> Curtis stated if the applicant chooses to rebuild that,he can since it is an existing encroachment. <br /> McGrann asked if he is requesting the red area and the green area on the bottom. <br /> VonFeldt indicated he is and that the red on the bottom depicts a deck. <br /> Page 57 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.