My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19, 2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the submitted survey is lacking detail in order to accurately determine whether the average <br /> setback is met based on the proposed five foot lakeward expansion. Past surveys of this property and the <br /> adjacent properties have not show��the 929.4' elevation contour and the current survey does not show that <br /> contour extending past the property boundaries,nor how it may curve inward to the immediate west. The <br /> survey also does not appear to correctly depict the driveay width. <br /> Given the constraints of the buildable area between the 75-foot setback line and the 30-foot front setback <br /> line, replacing the existing house in virtually the same location would appear to be more appropriate. The <br /> Planning Commission should consider whether the front entry overhang as proposed is acceptable at a <br /> distance of approximately 20.5 feet from the street lot line. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicant is not present tonight but that the Planning Commission should discuss the <br /> issues outlined in Staff's report. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if an engineer's letter has bee�� submitted regarding the foundation. <br /> Gaffron indicated it has not. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if approval could be subject to receiving that letter. <br /> Gaffron stated approval could be contingent upon the applicants being able to use the existing foundation. <br /> Gaffron stated it is doubtful they can move it further west since moving it any further west would likely <br /> create a greater encroachment. <br /> Landgraver stated he inferred from the applicant's practical difficulty statement that the foundation is <br /> falling apart. <br /> Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Page 23 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.