My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
02-19-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2013 3:31:01 PM
Creation date
4/1/2013 3:30:18 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.
/
400
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
. , <br /> Rodney Colson,Colson Custom Homes, stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning <br /> Commission may have. � <br /> Landgraver asked whether the applicant would be willing to redesign the deck. <br /> Colson indicated he is willing to adjust the size of the deck some. The deck is located on the alley side so <br /> it will have minimal impact to the neighboring property. Colson�ated he ould pull it back to match the <br /> -�:: <br /> house setback. `� � <br /> � ,� � <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the applicant is willing to make th se�c�'anges. � <br /> � <br /> E�� <br /> Colson stated he would be. <br /> Leskinen indicated her only concern was with regard to� �e'deck <br /> z:„ <br /> �x <br /> Chair Schoenzeit open the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. � ',� <br /> John Roedel,4725 North Shore Drive, asked if the� t�a o a.nd the deck � th being: pproved as part of the <br /> resolution. ��"�� <br /> Curtis stated that is what the applicant is requesting. - <br /> Schoenzeit noted Staff does have an issue �1i�Yie locatian of t e:d�,ck encroaching into the bluff setback <br /> � <br /> line and that the applicant has indica�e'`d they'e wil�ing:�o ad�u t�at. The Planning Commission is <br /> being asked to approve a bluff setb'�ackvat�iance. <br /> Roedel asked if the amount o ; ar aye�r and structura�ove,.x,age being requested is the maximum amount <br /> allowed. � � <br /> Schoenzeit t�the am°ount of hardcover and�structural coverage being requested should match what is <br /> eventuall�construcfed. <br /> �� ;._.�� <br /> Curt3s noted the applicant��,.a�llowe 15 percenfi=�siructural coverage and 25 percent hardcover. The patio <br /> is et ba�17 feet and extends,�3,feef into the bluff impact zone. Curtis recommended the Planning <br /> omrn�ssion also recommend e pa#io be reoriented so it is outside the bluff impact zone. <br /> ! a -� <br /> Sch`oenzeit�k d if the applican �s.okay with reorienting the patio. <br /> Colson indicated�h�uld be. Culson noted that the patio is optional at this point and no decisions have <br /> been made reg dmgsize� .;``% <br /> �`'� ' f the Plannin Commission would be that the atio be reoriented <br /> Schoenzert stated the re,comuiendatton o g p <br /> to be outside the bluff i p ct zone. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated as long as the motion includes reorienting the deck and patio,he would be inclined to <br /> approve it. � <br /> Leskinen asked if the size of the patio is a problem or the orientation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.