My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2016 10:05:02 AM
Creation date
1/13/2016 10:04:27 AM
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.
/
268
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, October 19, 2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> The adjacent property owner has expressed concerns in a letter that has been included in the <br /> Commission's packet regarding the impact on her views of the lake. Staff has looked at some ways to <br /> minimize the impact on that neighbor's views. The applicants could decrease the proposed roof pitch <br /> from 6:12 down to 4:12 or 3:12 and/ar reorient the peak from north/south to east/west. The applicants <br /> have revised their plans to a hip roof from a gable roof. Staff would recommend the design of the garage <br /> be revised from what is currently being proposed. <br /> The applicants have provided their practical difficulties documentation and have submitted letters from <br /> two neighboring properties. <br /> Staff would propose the following issues be discussed: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in arder to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> Schoenzeit asked why the garage will not be connected to the house or what would prevent a breezeway <br /> from being constructed. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicants would require a building permit along with the hardcover being increased. <br /> Gaffron noted this is a two-acre zone where a 30-foot setback would be required. <br /> Landgraver noted Staff s report states Staff would recommend that the garage design be modified to <br /> reduce the magnitude of the view encroachment if possible. Landgraver asked what Staff is thinking in <br /> thatregard. <br /> Page 10 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.