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 /> McGrann asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors. <br /> Curtis indicated she has not received any. <br /> Curtis displayed elevation views of the house from the front and back. The applicant has significant <br /> screening currently on the property and is proposing additional trees to screen that view. <br /> Landgraver asked where the 4-foot cantilever is proposed to be constructed. <br /> Curtis pointed out the 4-foot cantilever. Curtis stated the previous approval had a 2-foot overhang but <br /> that they are not adding 289 feet in addition to what was approved previously. The previous approval <br /> included square footage added onto the home and a shed. The current applicant is asking to combine that <br /> footprint and construct one building. Curtis indicated the footprint is the bottom footprint reflected in the <br /> calculation. As a result of the changes, the shed got bigger and a larger cantilever is being proposed than <br /> what was previously approved. <br /> Lemke asked if the previous application would be re-approved if there were no changes. <br /> Curtis indicated it would. <br /> David Wipson, Applicant, stated to address the 289 square feet, they are proposing the same combined <br /> square footage but are asking to combined that footage into one project along with the 4-foot cantilever <br /> on the back. Wipson noted the 2-foot cantilever was approved on the garage previously. The 2-foot <br /> overhang that was approved on the garage and accessory building resulted in 72 square feet of overhang <br /> and that his 4-foot cantilever results in 76 square feet. <br /> Wipson stated the issues of the practical difficulties are the same now as they were back when the prior <br /> owner was here. Wipson stated when the home was originally constructed, it did have a basement in it, <br /> but when they went through and applied to rebuild the home, they had to fill that in and lost the basement <br /> at that time. As a result of the basement being eliminated, the storage was lost, the mechanical room was <br /> lost, and a safe haven from severe weather was gone. When the home was rebuilt, there were also issues <br /> Page 18 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.