My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-16-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
06-16-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 11:40:46 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 2:08:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
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, May 19, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 24 of 31 <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated what is before the Planning Commission is incomplete at this point and that it appears <br />this is headed towards a transitional sub-district. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated the rezoning is in the best interests of the City since it will help clean up this site but <br />that the Planning Commission does need to closely look at the unintended consequences. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated the Planning Commission can either delve further into the details or direct Staff to look <br />into the creation of a sub-district and discuss that further at a work session. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in his view it would make sense to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a sub- <br />district at a work session. Gaffron stated if the City desires that a sub-district should be created, there <br />would be additional public hearings held. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated in her view that is the logical way to go and that the application should be tabled. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to table Application No. 14-3666, Luke Kujawa on behalf of <br />EOF Investments, LLC, 1440-1442 Shoreline Drive, and recommend that Staff investigate <br />development of a sub-district and to discuss it at a future Planning Commission work session. <br />VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> <br />5. 14-3667 TAMMY MADDREY & STEVEN SABES, 3435 EASTLAKE STREET, <br />VARIANCES, 8:45 P.M. – 9:36 P.M. <br /> <br />Tammy Maddrey, Applicant, was present. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting rear/street, lake and side yard setback variance approvals in <br />order to construct a second story over the existing home 13.9 feet from the east side and 15.7 feet from <br />the west side lot lines where 30 feet setbacks are required. Also being requested is a setback 52 feet from <br />the OHWl where a 75-foot setback is required; and 19.8 feet from the street where a 50-foot setback is <br />required. <br /> <br />The existing residence has existed on the site for a number of years. The lot is very small, consisting of <br />approximately 4,975 square feet and 50 feet in width. The existing structure is a 20’ x 28’ one-story with <br />some attic space and no basement. Gaffron stated the second story would be consistent with a number of <br />other additions approved for home expansions on the south side of Eastlake Street in the past. <br /> <br />Because the lake OHWL contour extends a few hundred feet up the creek based on surveys on file, the <br />majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but the front 25 feet is located within 75 feet of the <br />OHWL. This creates a practical difficulty for additional development of the property. The applicants do <br />have the right to replace the existing structures in-kind if they choose to do so but they are proposing to <br />add a second story. <br /> <br />The applicant’s submitted information correctly indicates that because the required side, front and <br />rear/lake setbacks overlap, the site has no functional buildable envelope. The only opportunity they have <br />for expansion without additional footprint encroachments would be above the existing structure. The <br />applicant’s proposal will not increase hardcover but it will increase the visual bulk and massing within the <br />substandard setbacks but not to the extent that it will be out of character with the neighborhood. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 24 of 31]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.