My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 4:28:14 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 4:28:04 PM
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.
/
244
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 TI3E ' <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 15,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3323 Structures Unlimited on Behalf of Judson Champlin, Continued) <br /> Langhans stated given the work on the septic system, if the house were built on the hill,it would be <br /> even more prominent. . <br /> Winer stated on the south elevation, it appears the peak is 32 feet from top to bottom and that it appears <br /> to be a 12:12 pitch. The surveyor's certificate shows the grade at the front of the deck is at 934' on the <br /> survey and at the midway point it is 938',with the back of the house being at 944'. <br /> Langhans concurred the lot is rather steep. <br /> Winer stated she would like to lmow the distance from the deck. <br /> Turner requested Mr.Langhans measure from the deck to the peak using the southeast elevation. <br /> Langhans stated from the surface of the deck, it would be 25 feet to the peak. <br /> Turner stated you would need to add eight feet to that number to account for the space between the deck <br /> and the ground. <br /> Langhans stated existing is 13 feet from the surface of the deck to the peak and they would be adding 12 <br /> feet. � � <br /> Winer questioned whether the building could be made wider rather than so tall. <br /> Turner stated it might be possible to make the roof flatter. <br /> Winer stated she would like to see the roof made flatter if at all possible. <br /> Zullo indicated she would also like to see the roof flatter given the closeness of the structure to the lake. <br /> Langhans stated he attempted to make the structure look like a chalet and that he could go to a 10:12 <br /> roof,which would result in a loss of attic space. Langhans noted the side walls in the second story are <br /> only three feet now. <br /> Winer asked whether the owners would be willing to consider one large dormer rather than three <br /> dormers. <br /> Langhans stated it is not possible to construct it with one large dormer as he would be using attic trusses <br /> on top of the existing structure. The dormers are sized to give them three equal sized dormers and <br /> provide some living space. Langhans stated he is limited to a maximum width of eight feet for the <br /> dormers. <br /> Kroeger stated in his view dormers help to break up the roofline. <br /> Kempf stated he would like to see some type of significant screening plan that could be presented to the <br /> City CounciL <br /> PAGE 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.