Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNIl�TG C4NIlVIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock pam. � <br /> c <br /> T�e adjacent property owner has expressed concams in a letxer that has bean includad in the � <br /> Commission's packet ragarding the impa�t on her views of ti�e lake. Staffhas looked at some ways to �� <br /> � <br /> minimize the impact on that neighbor's views. The applicants could de,�t�ase the proposed roof pitch <br /> fr�m 6:12 down to 4:12 or 3:12 snd/or reorient the peak from norti�lsouth to eest/west. Tbe applicauts <br /> �ave revised their plans to a hip roof from a gable roof. Staf�would reoor�naend the design of t�e g�rage <br /> be revised from what is curncntly being proposed. <br /> The applicants hsve provided their practical dif�culties documentation and have submitbed letters from <br /> two neighboring properties. <br /> Staff would propose the following issues be discussed: <br /> 1. Does t�e Planning Commissian fmd that the proparty awner proposes to use tiae p�perty im a <br /> reasonable manner which is not pamitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission 5nd that the variances,if granted,will nat alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood7 <br /> 3. Dces the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate�e <br /> impacts creabad by the granting of 1�e requested variances? <br /> Schoenzeit asked why the garage will not be connected to ti�o house or what would grevent a breezeway <br /> from being consbeucted. <br /> Ga�'ron stated the applicsnts would require a building pennit along wit�tha bardcaver being increased. <br /> Gaffron nabed this is a two-acre zone where a 30-foot setback would be requit�ad. <br /> Landgraver noted Staf�a repart states Staff would recommend that the garage design be modified to <br /> reduce the magnitude of the view enczoachmeat if possible. Landgraver asked whax Staff is thinking iun <br /> that regerd. <br /> Page 10 of 44 <br />