My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-17-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
11-17-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 12:39:24 PM
Creation date
4/6/2015 1:14:42 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.
/
332
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 20, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 20 of 28 <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked whether the 17 percent would be grandfathered in and would have to be granted for an <br />in-kind rebuild. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Planning Commission will need to outline the justification for the increase. Gaffron <br />stated that should not become the new standard but that the Planning Commission should make findings <br />that make this variance unique so the next application does not automatically get the 17 percent. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that. <br /> <br />McGrann asked what structural coverage the lot would support if there was a rebuild. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if the 17 percent is granted now, if the house burnt down, they could rebuild in the 17 <br />percent footprint. <br /> <br />Mack noted he drafted Finding No. 4, proposal which reads that the proposal involves a 2 percent <br />structural coverage variance but is offset by the fact that additional land area is owned with the property <br />on the opposite side of Ferndale Road West even though it cannot be technically applied to the lakeward <br />side of the property. <br /> <br />Mack illustrated on the overhead monitor the survey and the piece of land located across the roadway. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked how big the parcel is across the street. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it is 3.56 acres. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the concern is the extra two percent in structural coverage. <br /> <br />Todd Irvine stated he is not sure where the additional square footage of 595 square feet came from. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated there is an addition to the building in addition to the landscaping. <br /> <br />Irvine noted the addition is only 269 square feet. <br /> <br />Mack stated Staff used the applicants’ hardcover calculation worksheet for the proposed and identified <br />which ones of those were hardcover versus structure. Mack stated it is possible the addition constitutes <br />less structural coverage than what is listed in Staff’s report. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit noted there are lots of things that are structural, such as a 6-foot tall deck. <br /> <br />Irvine noted that is the only structural addition that is being proposed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the worksheet might be wrong that Staff took the numbers from. <br /> <br />Irvine stated the worksheet was not prepared by them and that the house addition is 269 square feet. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the surveyor’s worksheet might be wrong. <br /> <br />Irvine stated the surveyor’s worksheet reflects 269 square feet. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/17/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2014 <br />[Page 20 of 28]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.