My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/15/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
10/15/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2018 3:05:42 PM
Creation date
4/9/2015 2:36:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />Monday, October 15, 2012 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 3 <br /> <br />Olson stated due to living on the lake, the applicants require additional storage space. The small two-car <br />garage does not allow them any storage and the new garage would make the lot more attractive and user <br />friendly. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the hot tub is located on the property line. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it appears to be located on the property line. <br /> <br />Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. <br /> <br />Leskinen commented that there is quite a bit of hardcover on this lot. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated this property is significantly beyond what is normally allowed and that the Planning <br />Commission has to take the recommendation of Staff into consideration on this application. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the purpose of the new hardcover ordinance was to reduce the number of variances being <br />granted. Historically in Orono people are allowed two-car garages and that the applicants have the option <br />to remodel the house if they would like to upgrade the appearance. Walsh stated the lot already has a lot <br />of hardcover given the pool and hot tub, and that in his view going from 47 percent down to 30 percent is <br />not the answer. <br /> <br />Levang stated in her view the driveway could possibly be reduced somewhat. <br /> <br />Leskinen commented a bump out would probably still be required to allow the driveway to be functional. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated part of the Planning Commission’s job is to protect the environment and reduce hardcover, <br />which the applicants are doing. If the garage is built, it will be close to the house next door. Thiesse <br />noted the house next door does not have a pool, which accounts for a substantial amount of hardcover. <br />The applicant is reducing hardcover and the variance process is still available for those properties that do <br />not fit. Thiesse stated in his view this application is asking for too much. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated they could look at a better functioning two-car garage, but based on the current <br />guidelines, the applicants need to demonstrate a practical difficulty. Schoenzeit stated the level of <br />hardcover being requested is beyond what he would be comfortable approving and that he would <br />encourage the applicants to reduce the amount of hardcover on the lot. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted due to the configuration of the lot, the new hardcover ordinance did not benefit the <br />property owners much, but that he still would not be comfortable granting a variance for this amount of <br />hardcover. <br /> <br />Olson noted the current building envelope is already over existing hardcover and the net addition of <br />hardcover is 186 square feet over what is currently there. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.