PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�J �J • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 ( #6) #1910 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 - cont. Mabusth stated the proposed shed will not be screened by the treeline and affects the neighbor to the north. The structure will meet the 50' setback with a height of 15 -16'. Flood lights will be installed facing the school. The building is proposed of steel siding with wood trusses. Schroeder asked Lawson if there would be a problem providing additional screening. Lawson replied that he was unsure if additional screening will help very much. Smith asked if there was any possibility of locating the shed next to one of the existing dugouts or attach it to an existing structure so there were fewer structures scattered throughout the property. Lawson did not see the structure as being randomly placed. If it were attached to the dugouts, a variance would be required and there could be obstruction of the view of the baseball field. Lawson commented that most of the facilities are used by community groups who use the buildings for storage of youth equipment. It was determined that this location was the best for the storage shed and doesn't interfere with other activities. This is an out -of -the -way area and is not useable for anything else. Smith asked where the seating for the tennis courts and small storage area were to be located. Lawson explained it would not affect existing trees. The school has an orchard from which trees have been relocated to other areas of the school property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rowlette, to approve Application #1910 for the Orono School District, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, for a conditional use permit for two accessory structures to be moved back to the 50' setback with staffs recommendation for proper lighting and erosion control. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. - 9:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Lemmerman were present. Mabusth reviewed the lot line rearrangement which determined a building envelope that was approved before anyone was aware of the bluff impact. She reviewed the bluff definition of 50' segments with an 18% or greater slope. Nolan questioned why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application now instead of at the time of an actual building permit application. Mabusth responded that an area variance needs to be dealt with as part of the subdivision application and a building envelope defined. 0�