My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:48:09 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 2:48:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated there likely would be a new resolution drafted rather than modifying the existing <br /> resolution. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the house would still be encroaching if the 45-foot line is moved to the 30-foot <br /> line. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted they would need a variance if they do not build in kind in <br /> the same location. <br /> Adams noted where the house is currently located is the flatter portion of the lot. <br /> Thiesse asked if he will be rebuilding the house. <br /> Adams indicated he will not be and that he is the realtor representing the owner. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff has had a number of discussions with the applicant regarding what the future plans <br /> are for the house and that the applicant and owner appear to have a good understanding of what would <br /> and would not be allowed in terms of the setbacks. <br /> Leskinen stated if this property is no longer a back lot and the LR-lA standards are adopted,the building <br /> envelope would be made larger. <br /> Gaffron concurred that that would be the result. <br /> McGrann asked if the current owner is looking to rebuild the house. <br /> Adams stated the current owner is in the process of deciding what to do and that they are not in a hurry to <br /> do anything at this point. Adams stated he is not sure what their future plans are but that it usually is <br /> more cost effective to tear the existing structure down and rebuild rather than remodel. Adams noted the <br /> 30-foot setbacks would also allow them to center the house on the lot. Adams stated currently one side of <br /> the house is at the 10-foot setback and the other side is at a 40-foot setback. <br /> Gaffron noted a small portion of the house has a 40-foot setback from the west lot line and the other side <br /> is at the 10-foot setback. <br /> Adams stated the house could be shifted over 15 feet and they would still be about 20 feet into the <br /> nonconforming area but that it would be better than the 10-foot setback. <br /> Lemke asked if hardcover would be an issue if they wanted to rebuild. <br /> Adams stated if they go outside the footprint,they would be required to bring the hardcover into <br /> compliance. <br /> Gaffron noted it is currently at 29 percent and would need to be reduced to 25 percent. <br /> Adams indicated the owners are aware of that. Adams stated in his view there is a lot of blacktop on the <br /> property that could be eliminated. Adams stated cleaning the lot up and centering the house on the lot <br /> makes sense and would make the lot look better. <br /> Page 5 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.